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.

Chris Dorworth

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

Article contains "legal problems" section which repeats claims made by opinion writers for various newspapers. Article refers to these claims as "recent" even though the source material is more than 2 years old at this point. "Legal problems" section is one-sided, and difficult to defend under "neutral point of view" rule of Biographies of living persons. Other claims included are claims that are refuted in other sections of same articles used as source material, but only negative information from source material is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobserver (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed this section ruthlessly (while also keeping all three references), as it not only had problems with neutral point of view, but also appeared to be a copyvio of the sources it was using. An argument could be made for removing it entirely, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I got rid of the rest.[1] Articles "claiming" that Dorworth was facing "financial problems" (whatever that means) is BLP problematic. Having that information offset in its own subsection in the article compounded the problem. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Frank0051 seems not to approve, but I'm outta here for the night. Maybe someone else could explain it to him. If not, I'll hopefully get to it sometime tomorrow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did not see this originally - thought you were whitewashing. I have done some clean-up on it on it. Lets keep in mind here - we don't want to been seen as favoring one position or another, lest we end up with another David Rivera white-washing issue. So lets not just toss the entire section out with the bathwater when there are portions of it which certainly seem worthy of inclusion since they have been reported on multiple times by multiple sources.Frank0051 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that the only things that happened in this person's life over the last two years were that (1) Dorworth was elected by his fellow Republicans to serve as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and (2) legal problems and ethics questions. That is the way the article reads, which is wholly offensive and clearly a BLP violation. The article is nothing more than an attack piece on a political leader. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What else has been reported that is notable? Stating facts that are widely reported on are not a violation of Wikipedia's policy. I did not add the initial claims regarding Dorworth's legal issues, but I spent a great deal of time cleaning them up last night after I noticed changes [which I thought were whitewashing]. I attempted to make the section more brief and neutral based on what has been reported; find sources to contradict or add to that section and make the changes. Simple as that, I don't see any other issues here. Frank0051 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And, to add to this point, if you don't think Wikipedia covers controversy about living individuals, look no further than David Rivera's Wikipedia entry. By your logic the ONLY thing that has happened to Rivera over the past several years as been controversy and that "must" mean the entry is violating Wikipedia's policies :rolls eyes:. Frank0051 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is ongoing. I'm posting to keep this thread alive, and also to point out that notable ≠ noteworthy. If the events themselves are notable, that's a matter that is altogether irrelevant; if notable, they deserve their own articles and a minimal part of a BLP. Noteworthiness, on the other hand, is best demonstrated through objective, enduring biographical and encyclopedic significance. What is reported on, and cited to, here is more akin to reporting events without actually accounting for said significance. Compare WP:UNDUE. The controversies and investigations need absolutely be proven to be something you'd expect to see in an encyclopedic biography. Right now, what I see, is intractable editorial differences personified by certain edit summaries. This is not an adequate substitute for discussion. So: how is the information in the diff above encyclopedically biographical? JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A significant contributor does not seem to fully understand WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed an inordinate amount of detail regarding the subject's legal problems. The coverage was local/opinion/blog, and the enduring biographical significance seemed to be zero. See WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I did leave in ethics bits, since it's most relevant to political notability. JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Most recent post
• Other prior posts

This is a follow-up to post here on 12 April. The dispute seemingly has not been resolved. Probably the same anonymous user continues to insert original research, poorly referenced claims, while removing well referenced information from this living person biographical article.

- The user inserts a sentence (or part of) from Tammet's first book, lifted out of context, and which has not been referenced in any reliably published secondary source that I can find. This seems an obvious example of original research.

- The user inserts the claim that Tammet's interview in Icelandic lasted a "few minutes" relying on the English subtitles from the documentary film ("We are now going to try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes" etc.) The Icelandic interviewer actually says "næstu mínútur" (literally 'next minutes'). No reliable published secondary source cites interview duration. This seems another obvious example of original research.

- The user removed the referenced statement from Tammet's first book that he speaks 10 languages, claiming that 'only' French, German, and Icelandic have been 'verified'. This is a third obvious example of original research. The statement, drawn from the subject's own book, is well sourced, particularly as the article only states that Tammet 'says' he speaks these languages.

I notice that in every case the user's intention is to diminish/put in doubt Tammet's achievements. It follows a long-established pattern of vandalism and edit-warring behavior on the article by anonymous single-purpose users.

I strongly recommend speedy editorial intervention to prevent this from dragging on. Oughtprice99 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims which cannot be independently verified are not permitted in Wikipedia. I have removed the poorly sourced (circular-sourced), self-made claim.

My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” , talking about maths/algebra, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response - for letters, to which I had none.” I trust admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have restored the edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version is clearer.

I, and several administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to admin warnings and admin reverts. For example, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by admin (Bbb23) and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments – evidence of vandalism. Above, (talking about algebra) user Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – twice reverted. These are just two examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, with desperation Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the full list of universities which have tested Tammet, and omitting/blocking the fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes (as quoted) within their programme content.

I petition admin to guard good points made and act to prevent user Oughtprice99 from instigating further disruption.XNQlo (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have only two comments. First, I am not an admin. Second, the article has been fully protected by someone who is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki rules for living person bio articles are strict and require reliably published sources. Original research is not permitted. My edits simply conform to Wiki's guidelines for the reasons I have already given. Wikipedia editors are not asked to 'verify' information about subjects, but only to faithfully reproduce statements that have been reliably published.

Several major published media have stated that Tammet has learned 10 languages, including:

"Daniel Tammet can speak 10 languages, including Lithuanian and Welsh, as well as his own invented language" (The Independent, 23 July 2006)

"Daniel Tammet ... has learned to speak more than 10 languages" (Spiegel, 5 March 2009).

No self-made claim at all.

If you have a reliably published source for the 'full list of universities which have tested Tammet' (ie, not your own original research), please produce it. Otherwise, we need to publish only what the sources - reliable published major media articles - have stated to date. I had already updated the statement using a reference from a New York Times article on the subject. Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply in a few days. Thank you for your patience in advance.XNQlo (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added detail to the original posting above to clarify further the points already made. Please forgive some of the overlap herein.

Exceptional claims of language ability need verification. There is no evidence of other languages spoken other than French, German and Icelandic. Impressive self-written claims and inconsistent claims made to the press (reported differently and reported as “can” speak) where there is no consensus and a self-claim of ability which cannot be independently verified makes for a poor edit. Put simply, anyone could claim in a self-written memoir to speak say 12 languages – it hardly makes good editing to include touted claims of grandeur absent of reported consensus and verification. To accept mention of self-made claims would reduce every Wikipedia biography to the temptation of distortion and PR filling.

My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet (in his own self-written memoir) wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” I trust users and admin will agree that my edit is faithfully and accurately phrased. I have rightfully restored the reliably sourced edit. That said, if admin deem the latter wording is preferable, please insert the edit on my behalf. However, I assert that Tammet's wording is written in an awkward way and for ease of understanding my version which, says exactly the same thing, is clearer. User Oughtprice99 falsely and oddly labels the edit as original research – obsessively reverted. This is clearly wrong. Also, Oughtprice99 originally complained the reproduced sentence did not include its context or a page number – both have been given. There is no justification to discuss this point any more.

I, and several users or administrators, have intervened previously regarding user Oughtprice99’s frequent, fallacious and disruptive conduct – leading to warnings and reverts (for example, see User Oughtprice99’s Talk Page). To cite an example of vandalism, user Oughtprice99 was recently stopped by a user and myself for deleting irrefutable scientific findings and then pulled up again for altering the scientists’ comments to suit his own bias – evidence of vandalism and COIN. Another example of vandalism by Oughtprice99 involves covertly adding wording not attributable to the original author (I can cite the sentence if requested). Also, I noticed in a recent BLPN, user Oughtprice99’s claims were denounced/rejected by two users and furthermore, Oughtprice99 was told he should not make personal assumptions about a user’s identity – same mistake made again. Be aware also that the same user obsessively reverted Joshua Foer’s reliably sourced (book published) criticism, upholding a consensus of 5:1 for several weeks (see Talk Page history) – mistakenly arguing to block a criticism before eventually being forced to concede.

Additionally, user Oughtprice99 also blocked Joshua Foer’s (Moonwalking with Einstein) criticism about Tammet’s face recognition ability. Citing a reliable, secondary source (World Memory Championships), the author highlighted Tammet’s gold medal Name/Face results and compared the findings with the Cambridge study “impaired” results. Note, pictures of faces are given, and upon recognition of the faces, the contestants have to recall the names). Science journalist and former US Memory Champion, Joshua Foer, outlined the anomaly in his award-winning book. A several user consensus was established in the Talk Page. User Oughtprice99 obsessively blocked all attempts to sensitively mention the reliably sourced, referenced point – demonstrating further dogmatic control the site. This edit is unresolved.

These are just a few examples, of which there are many, showing ill-intent or misguided judgement. There are a plethora of instances of invention and falsities, in addition to umpteen edit wars all involving the same user throughout the Talk Page. Several users have complained and it appears several users have felt sidelined or disheartened as a result of lengthy, quarrelsome exchanges with Oughtprice99. Bar some genuine objections, it is clear that the protectionist, COIN user (several users in the Talk Page speculate is Tammet) is controlling the article and solely shaping the article with approxiametly 150 edits of late, and furthermore, obsessively acting to prevent ordinary statements from been edited in. To give an example, user Oughtprice99 is defending vagueness over preciseness, e.g. preventing editors from inserting the exact list of universities which have tested Tammet (i.e. all major media sources state two universities only: Cambridge (ARC) and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies). Also, user Oughtprice99 is misleading readers by quoting the NYT reference – he knows full well the reference points to the previous sentence – two, two word (adjective/adverb) unsupported insertions of no substance. To give yet another example, Oughtprice99 is obsessively deleting the reliably sourced fact that the Icelandic interviewers spoke to Tammet for a few minutes, as stated verbally in Icelandic and stated in English subtitles, as evidenced in the UK documentary, The Boy with the Incredible Brain. Moreover, user Oughtprice99 is deliberately misleading readers by not disclosing that the TED related sentence was copied from a website, specifically referenced as blog material which, constitutes poor and inadequate sourcing as per Wikipedia rules. A few users in the Talk Page have attributed misleading edits to Oughtprice99 before. Finally, I have also noticed that Oughtprice99 appears to have posted an originally researched finding about a female user’s background in a previous BLPN and posted a somewhat disparaging remark about author Joshua Foer in a user’s Talk Page – which I feel is disrespectful and unacceptable.

User Oughtprice99 is arguably taking ownership of the article and at times is abusing his privilege to edit the article – deleting reliably sourced edits, edit warring and obsessively quibbling on and on about factual edits from reasoning which is baseless and erroneous. The user has a long history of malpractice. Collectively there is a compelling case for admin to recognise the user’s often problematic and persistent disregard for Wikipedia rules and practices which, I have only partly summarized above. Can something be done to curb or stop further flagrant malpractice?

Regarding edit protection, one reasonable suggestion would be to indefinitely protect the reliably sourced edits I have made to prevent embedded alterations/deletions being made within legitimate future edits by user Oughtprice99 or an anonymous IP user. User Oughtprice99 has altered paragraph wording before while adding legitimate details to a citation (see edits related to scientific study findings – no activation of colour areas in regions of the brain).

It is reasonable to assume given Oughtprice99’s history further disruption is highly likely. There is evidence of COIN, insistence on OPOV only, vandalism, constant edit warring, controlling the site – the collective impact of which is spoiling the editing experience of Wikipedia users from editing reliably sourced material – i.e. inserting edits into the article from Tammet’s own self-written memoir. As a result few people edit now. I petition admin to act.

There appears to be three places for this discussion: here, dispute noticeboard and talk page. I suggest closing the BLPN and using only the dispute noticeboard and talk page - otherwise its going to get messy and awkward for users to contribute. If acceptable to admin, can this BLPN be closed. Thank you for your consideration in advance.XNQlo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed due to pending discussion here.XNQlo (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May Day arbitrary break

I'll start my comment by referring above parties (except Bbb23) to WP:DIFF. It's immensely helpful when you're trying to coax people who don't care a great deal (i.e., objective people) into reading your wall of text. This isn't necessarily the board of investigation. The above wall of text is indicative of one or several problems BLPN does not address, namely user behavior per se, which is the realm of WP:EWN and WP:ANI to name a few. Because some intelligible questions touch on sourcing, another appropriate venue may have been WP:RSN, if even only to invite the regulars into this forum to discuss. The gist seems to be a challenge to the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. If I've missed a content-related issue, forgive me, but frankly it's WP:TLDR. Re-post the issue you're bringing in a succinct manner, and volunteers here won't miss it.

The subject speaks 10 languages; a rather noteworthy claim, of encyclopedic biographical significance to this subject in particular. So what. It's challenged. Go to sources. They're generally reliable, but we should ask who the sources are, who the ultimate sources are, and what they are reliable in reporting as fact. While verifiability is not an operation in original research, it is only a part of how we treat sources in question. Here, sources are secondary: they essentially report on primary source claims. So, on one hand, reliable sources objectively seem convinced-to-accepting of the claim that the subject speaks 10 languages. On the other hand, no reasonable reader could assume news, especially rather local news, to be competent to evaluate fluency among one, let alone ten, languages. Generally, journalists establish credibility and report accordingly, at the risk of their own credibility. In this case, I think, a tertiary or specialized primary/secondary source would be ideal: Guinness World Records, a well-published and reputable language study, another encyclopedia even.

On balance, the claim is just that: Daniel Tammet or someone reporting on him claims he speaks 10 languages; more precisely: he reportedly speaks at least 10 languages.^{[<ref name="Non-primary F00/"><ref>Non-primary F00</ref>]} No comment on fluency, because the sources in question are of least reliability as to the fluency of an interviewee's performance of, say, ten different languages.

If there's another specific issue at hand regarding the subject or content, kindly re-post below. Don't forget diffs. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr,

Thanks for your contribution. Your wording seems fair: 'He reportedly speaks at least 10 languages' with links to the reliable third-party published sources.

Other specific issues are raised at the top of this section, and on the article's talk page. Specifically:

- The user XNQlo insists that Tammet has been studied at precisely two scientific sites. He gives no source for this claim, which appears to be original research. A New York Times article from 2007(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15savant.html?pagewanted=all) states only that he has been "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States". Tammet's website states: "His remarkable memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities have been studied by some of the world's leading neuroscientists at California's Center for Brain Studies and the UK's Cambridge Autism Research Centre."

What about: 'Tammet has been studied by scientists at the Center for Brain Studies in California and the Cambridge Autism Research Centre in the UK'.

- The same user inserts a sentence stating that Tammet's Icelandic interview lasted 'a few minutes'. His source is a documentary subtitle that only shows the opening seconds of the interview. In the subtitle it says 'We will try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes'. No reliable source that I know of gives the interview's actual duration. Did the interview last 5 minutes, or 10, or 15? We don't know.

- The same user has removed a referenced statement that Tammet was 'among the invited speakers at TED 2011 in Long Beach, California'. Source is Tammet's own blog. The user argued that blogs are not reliable sources. Wiki rules, however, state that blogs can be used when they are written by the subject of the article, and are not unduly self-serving. The TED website has a page showing Tammet's entire lecture (www.ted.com/talks/daniel_tammet_different_ways_of_knowing.html). The single sentence should be restored to the article. Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Tammet's website or blog for anything that touches on his claims to notability. Those claims are generally open to challenge, and the subject's say-so doesn't win. Even his own book is inappropriate for sourcing a statement that he learned Icelandic in a week, as the article does now; it needs to be clearly phrased in terms of a self-published claim. On the other hand, using those primary sources for information about, say, his family background and personal life, would be alright. But when there's a more reliable third party source for the scientific investigation of what makes the subject notable, it should be used instead. Stick with "studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States."

Self-serving isn't the only problem; insignificance is also. WP:PRIMARY sources generally are insufficient to demonstrate a given topic is worth any weight, but they can be used to give some additional information within a topic that's clearly worth mentioning. Third party coverage is required to show the import of this subject's having been a TED speaker. If there isn't anything out there, let it go.

I find the "few minutes" quote from the subtitle problematic because I'm not able to verify any of the the documentary contents (I looked for a bit but didn't find it in a reliable place). A URL would help. But, from what you say, the video contains a statement of intent to speak with the subject "for a few minutes," and the text here reports a completed action. That's improper, unless the video actually shows the few minutes. If it does, "few minutes" need not be in quotes. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again JFHJr,

TED appears to be a pretty prestigious international event, and the subject's speech to the conference appears in full on the TED website. I also note that Wikipedia have articles on TED, and all past TED speakers, which would suggest notability.

'Studied repeatedly by researchers in Britain and the United States' seems fair to me.

I can confirm that the video shows only a few seconds from the interview, and agree with your conclusion.

The same user XNQlo repeatedly inserts a sentence statement from subject's memoir about him not seeing algebraic equations in synesthetic colors. I assume from what you say above that this would also be inappropriate according to Wiki notability rules. Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

XNQlo makes some valid points. The quote from Tammet's book about non-synaesthetic response for letters is unquestionably acceptable. I do not accept the generalisation that Tammet has been tested by researchers in America and Britain. Why? I favour accuracy, i.e. only two centres of research are mentioned across all media sources. I suggestion the following: "Tammet has been tested by researchers at Cambridge University Autism Research Centre and UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies." I agree with XNQlo about self-serving claims of language ability without any test of fluency. It is not an appropriate edit. Regarding the matter about acceptability of blog material, it represents poor and improper sourcing, and so any quotes taken from Tammet's own website or his blog or any other blog is no good. I noticed that two, approximately one and a half minute clips of Tammet speaking in Icelandic are shown in the documentary. The interview was very short. It is handy to know how long the interview lasted as Tammet in his memoir does not disclose the duration of the interview. XNQlo is aiming for precision I think. The Icelandic interviewers mention "next few minutes" and XNQlo states "few minutes" - it is hardly original research. Just an observation . . . why has user Oughtprice99 created a single-purpose account solely representing the Tammet article?194.238.70.70 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If TED is so prestigious, third party coverage is even more appropriate. Other Wiki articles are irrelevant. I don't have the memoir to compare the synesthesia claim to, but if it's not supported in those exact terms, it should be removed. I'm not even sure the assertion has any value in a biography (it seems like trivia to me), but if it's accurate at all compared to the source, it should be phrased in terms of a claim.

Regarding the IP's statements: it is original research to assert something that is not contained in the source, or to use, say, a subtitle statement of intent to assert an event occurred. If the institute names appear in any reliable sources, and not just in self-publications, show those sources. What's called a generalization by the IP is actually what one reliable source in question truly states. I'll also point out that XNQlo (talk · contribs) is himself an WP:SPA, and I have lots of difficulty believing the IP is not actually XNQlo.

Both of you should learn to indent using colons. JFHJr (㊟) 20:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Note: I've taken the liberty of indenting for legibility. JFHJr (㊟) 04:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr. Thank you for trying to help out. I appreciate the time you’re spending to help resolve matters. Several comments. I (XNQlo) and IP (above) are in different parts of the country. Secondly, I have provided the exact quote about non-synaesthesia for letters below:

On page 117 of “Born on a Blue Day” (publisher: Hodder and Stoughton, copyright 2006 Daniel Tammet), talking about maths/algebra in the leading sentence, Tammet wrote: “I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” My edit read, “In his memoir, talking about algebra, Tammet states not experiencing a synaesthetic response for letters.” Of the two which do you think can be used JFHJr, please tell me.

User Oughtprice99 states the video shows “only a few seconds” of the interview. Untrue. Approximately three minutes is shown. As the IP user also confirms. As per your suggestion above, it seems fair to remove the quotes. Agreed. Regarding the statement “he learned Icelandic in a week”, like you, I find it problematic as it stands. What would you suggest as an alternative?

As for language ability, there is no “press” consensus about number of languages spoken. Several articles cite different claims. Furthermore, should we really include journalist uptake of a notable self-made claim?

I agree with Oughtprice99’s original posting above but slightly changed: “Tammet has been studied at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre and the UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies.” Hope this is agreeable.XNQlo (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

About the synaesthesia: I'd leave out algebra, since it's not really helpful in making the point: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters."

We can include language claims that appear in third party sources, even if those sources aren't competent to evaluate the claims themselves. When that's done, it's best to add indicative language: "Tammet claims to speak 10 languages." I'd leave out the Icelandic-in-a-week claim if it only appears in his self-publication. On the same subject, viewer commentary and description of a documentary is in fact original research if the information in question is not actually from the documentary: i.e., the duration of the interview. Leave it out. If there's anything worth stating about the documentary, it will be the actual contents, not a combination of shown, unshown, and subtitles, plus some information from the subject's memoir about the interview.

Finally, what reliable source is there about the institutes where the subject was studied? From what's been shown here, reliable sources haven't stated those two. What's more, none have limited the statement to the two. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggested sentence "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters" risks appearing inaccurate as Tammet states in the memoir p.10 "My synaesthesia also affects how I perceive words and language. The word 'ladder,' for example, is blue and shiny, while 'hoop' is a soft, white word..." On page 11: "I can even make the colour of a word change by mentally adding initial letters to turn the word into another: 'at' is a red word, but add the letter H to get 'hat' and it becomes a white word." XNQlo's sentence refers to letters appearing in algebraic equations.

The Icelandic-in-a-week claim appears in a documentary film 'The Boy with the Incredible Brain' and several reliable published sources including Spiegel, 5 Mar 2009: "He learned Icelandic in a week for a TV documentary" www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,611381,00.html

Google search for 'Tammet TED' brings up over a million results. The TED website shows Tammet's talk in full (which has been viewed 600,000 times). TED's blog for the event, date Mar 4 2011, shows a photo of Tammet on stage with a quote from his talk. http://blog.ted.com/2011/03/04/ted2011-report-%E2%80%93-session-9-threads-of-discovery/ I think it's quite a stretch to suggest this is not a notable event in Tammet's career worthy of a single sentence.

I also notice that all mention of Tammet's documentary film, first broadcast on UK national television in 2005, has been removed from the article. Many third-party published sources refer to it. The documentary brought Tammet to public attention. It should have a sentence in the article. Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement on synaesthesia could be made more accurate by stating: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for words and numbers, but not letters in algebraic contexts." The subject's memoir is not the best source, but since it's speaking to a condition rather than an achievement, it's probably an acceptable amount of trivia relating to his being a savant.

The Spiegel article and its own sourcing are rather strong. Its contents do not seem based solely on Tammet's claims, but also on researching past coverage and language coach (i.e., expert) evaluation. It could support a statement along the lines of "Tammet can speak over 10 languages, including German, Romanian, Gaelic, Welsh, and Icelandic, having learned some in as little as a week."

The subject's blog is insufficient for establishing the significance of a speech. So are any other Google search results that do not qualify as reliable sources. You can think that's a stretch, but it's not. You can replace the documentary film mentions and references directly to it. It's probably an acceptable secondary source in itself. Feel free to provide diffs to explain what you're talking about as far as removal. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Languages: Disagree with recent assertion. Spiegel article is problematic. Quotation is false, “learned some languages in a week”. Article claims learned German in a week – totally false. Tammet studied GCSE German (2yrs) and advanced (A level) GCSE German (2yrs) at school (British school education system – 4yrs in total) – see Wikipedia article. Also, Spiegel online states “more than 10 languages” and Spiegel magazine states three languages and “seven other languages” – equals 10. Contradiction. No consensus across media sources (reported as several up to ten). Your suggestion to add, "Tammet claims to speak 10 languages" is acceptable and supported. Please leave it as you previously agreed.

Languages: Tammet managed a short rudimentary conversation in Icelandic only – handling a few, arguably obvious, pithy questions (of which 3 minutes were shown on the documentary). It is an over–stretch to claim "he learned Icelandic in a week" given there is no qualified consensus. Your suggestion to remove, "he learned Icelandic in a week" is supported. Also, agree to remove “duration of interview” quote. If I find a report which states the length of the interview I will edit it into the article.

Synaesthesia: Adding new words into an author’s original wording is not permitted. Tammet exactly wrote: I found it very difficult to use equations that substituted numbers – to which I had a synaesthetic and emotional response – for letters, to which I had none.” Tammet states emphatically, “for letters” there is no response. Your agreement: "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers, but not letters" is acceptable and supported. Another sentence can mention “words” point. Please leave it as you previously agreed.

Other matters. The documentary mentions both universities. The collaborated sentence, "Tammet has been studied at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre and the UC San Diego Center for Brain Studies" is broadly agreeable. Also, the documentary film (2005) has nothing to do with TED blog (2011). Furthermore, website/blog referencing is not acceptable. Regarding the supposed removal of documentary details, user Oughtprice99 is mistaken – check article. This is the second disingenuous point in two recent postings – why does user Oughtprice99 invent and/or deliberately falsify statements in order to coax unknowing people into agreement? I have outlined this recurring problem before. I will consider raising this behaviour at the appropriate noticeboard. XNQlo (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed edit protection prematurely removed. Why? The BLPN is not marked as resolved. Discussion is still underway. Consensus is not yet established. User Oughtprice99 has used JHFJr's name in the edit summary of the article claiming that everything is resolved. This is not true. XNQlo (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't refer me to the article for information; it's worthless. Refer me to the source, along with a link if you can. You found a contradiction that decreases the reliability of the Spiegel reporting. So we're left with the claim itself, phrased in terms of a claim. That's fine.

Provide a reliable source describing the Icelandic conversation as rudimentary. Your opinions and impressions of the interview don't matter. Only that of reliable sources.

Your underlined comment regarding changing original wording is misguided. Stating "In his memoir, Tammet states experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for words and numbers, but not letters in algebraic contexts" is permitted and accurate according to the information in quotes above. We are not constrained to direct quotes, nor to awkward sentences or separate sentences. The topic of synaesthesia merits very little weight, and conciseness is required.

If the documentary mentions both universities, you should provide a {{Cite video}} citation to be precise about it. Along those lines, I suggest using {{rp}} to improve the citations to Tammet's memoir; they're rather imprecise currently, which makes them hard to verify.

Page protection is not subject to this discussion. This is not the forum for page protection. I'll add that your accusation of vandalism is false; see WP:VANDALISM to see what vandalism is. I don't see where anyone claimed this topic was resolved. Either provide diffs to show what you're talking about, or stop talking about other people's behavior. JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the Spiegel reference in the article, deleted by XNQlo, in accordance with JFHJr's previous comments, and have been careful to qualify the claim using 'reportedly': "Tammet has reportedly learned 10 languages, including Romanian, Gaelic, Welsh, and Icelandic which he learned in one week for a TV documentary." The claim that Tammet learned Icelandic in one week is repeated within the documentary film itself of course, and has also appeared in many other third-party published sources concerning him, therefore highly notable.

A different (?) user has inserted a claim that Tammet made an error during his recitation of the number Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Tammet&diff=491147044&oldid=491141473) Only supporting reference is a website claiming to rank all Pi records. This website flatly contradicts all the reliable sources listed elsewhere in the article. No reliable third-party published source states that Tammet made an error during his recitation, including the press release statement (referenced in the article) by the University where Tammet performed his recitation in 2004. Have therefore removed the website reference as a poor source for a living person biographical article. Suggest a consensus be quickly reached over matter to prevent it from descending into yet another potential edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Anticipating XNQlo's comments about the Spiegel article being somehow inaccurate, the article does state that Tammet had learned some "rudimentary school German" before his trip to Germany. As for the other reliable third-party sources, the Boston Globe from March 11 2007 (http://articles.boston.com/2007-03-11/ae/29225571_1_autistic-savant-synesthesia-memoir) reported: "He can learn foreign languages - even notoriously tricky ones like Icelandic - in a week." The Australian, on Jan 31 2009, stated: "He has a similar facility with words and language: he learned Icelandic in a week" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-savvy-savant-finds-his-voice/story-e6frg6to-1111118714550). Tammet gave an interview to Iceland Review (http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=298978) on 21 Jan 2008. The interviewer is an American who states that he has "spent five years in Iceland and still stumble through my declensions, but then you blow into town and in a week make me look like a beginner."

The Pi rank website contradicts itself: the page http://pi-world-ranking-list.com/lists/memo/index.html states that Tammet's record is 22514 digits with the words 'European/British record' (in agreement with all the reliable published sources). Only when one clicks the 'notes' link does a separate page make the claim of an error. No supporting references are given, and the website appears to be anonymously run.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pi edit is a different user (admin can verify this). If Pi claim appears only in a website then its no good. I have taken the liberty to correct the spelling of my username above. Please spell it correctly in future Oughtprice99. Thanks. XNQlo (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"If Pi claim appears only in a website then its no good." Really? That's right beside claiming we can't change the wording from a source. Where do you come up with these broad and utter misapprehensions? Link to policies, please, or don't try to assert any. FYI, reliable sources often come in the form of a website. And editorial anonymity isn't necessarily a barrier to reliability. The level of micro-management between you two has become unwarranted. I think you're both ready to either take it to the talk page or refrain from editing the article because you've both mischaracterized each other's behavior, displayed a lack of good faith or even a very good understanding of BLP policy despite being BLP WP:SPAs — oh, and edit warring, too. If another BLPN volunteer is inclined to take over babysitting, have at it. I've finished with this lot. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

Resolved

 – Content and COI issues resolved for now. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 22:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article are needed per recent events. I can't touch the article for the moment because of 3RR, but the history speaks for itself, as well as the silly discussion between an editor and me on the article's Talk page. I have to log off now as I'm going out to dinner. Thanks for any assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are issues I noticed that might be subject to deletion. The lead refers to FBI and SEC investigations. The statement could be contrary to WP:BLP: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime before a conviction is secured." The harassment section mentions lawsuits against him with confidential settlements. The suggestion of wrong doing is very strong but with no proof because the outcomes are confidential. I am not sure there is sufficient reliable sourcing to include statements regarding his sexuality. Are these the topics you are questioning?Coaster92 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some of the material you are looking at was added after I logged off Wikipedia. Unfortunately, things got much worse rather than better. The stuff about the FBI and the SEC is sourced to that same WSJ article (the reference list is a mess with dupes and missing tags). I can only access the very beginning of the article as I assume I have to have a subscription to access the rest.

Unfortunately, except for one minor edit by Red Pen of Doom, the only editors of the articles are WP:SPAs and IPs (I'm not counting the editor with whom I was having a contentious dispute - although way off base, I think xe's sincere). I have removed two blatant copyright violations from the article (as an exemption to 3RR), but, otherwise, I am still taking a hands off approach. I suspect that this paragraph is also a copyright violation, but I can't access the WSJ source (even when the URL is fixed - it has a technical problem) to verify it:

In April 2008, three Louisiana public pension funds invested an aggregate of $100 million in Series N Shares of FIA Leveraged Fund, a Cayman Island hedge fund managed by Fletcher Asset Management. The terms of the Series N Shares provided for a preferential return of 12% per annum. In March 2011, the Municipal Employees Retirement System of Louisiana requested redemption of $15 million of its investment, and the Firefighters Retirement System of Louisiana requested redemption of $17 million of its investment. In June 2011, these two pension funds and the New Orleans Fire Fighter's Pension and Relief Fund requested a redemption of their entire investment in FIA Leveraged Fund. In January 2012, the three pension funds petitioned the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands to order that FIA Leveraged Fund be wound up and that two employees of Ernst & Young be appointed as joint official liquidators of the Company. In April 2012, the Court granted the petition and ordered that FIA Leveraged Fund be wound up.

Even if it weren't a copyright problem, it is redundant, as there is now material about the hedge fund issue scattered throughout the article.

One of the SPAs, User:Sjrcass, has a clear conflict based, not only on his editing, but on this lovely edit summary: "Removing promotional and inaccurate statements based on experience as Fletcher employee".

As is occasionally the case in onslaughts like this, there are some occasional acceptable edits thrown in. In fact, the one with the above edit summary, I would have agreed with, not so much because it was promotional or inaccurate, but because it was trivial.

This article has some history from last December, during which I removed an excessive amount of detail about various lawsuits.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend a deep revert to December. I was involved in producing that version, so I'll see if another BLPN regular would agree. JFHJr (㊟) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The December version above looks much better to me. There is no mention of the SEC/FBI investigation or harassment, which seem inappropriate based on WP:BLP as mentioned in my earlier comments. The December version still has the sexual orientation references and I am not sure if that is appropriate. Under [[WP:BLP] is stated:

Categories, lists and navigation templates/Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

I see that this policy refers to categories but wonder if these restrictions also apply in general in an article, ie, if a person has not openly stated their sexual orientation, should that topic be left out of the article if it is not related to their his notability?Coaster92 (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. Sorry I missed that. The sexual orientation doesn't belong. It's not mentioned in the prose, and wouldn't have much of a place, relevance-wise. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Not sure how I missed that. I guess I got caught up in the diffs. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to restore it, I would go back to the April 9, 2012, version as there were some minor but good edits since your December 8, 2011, version. As for the "controversial" material, although I don't feel strongly about it, I don't think a brief mention (in the body only) of what happened recently would be inappropriate. I agree about removing the gay cat, not because it's not mentioned in the prose, but because the mentions don't satisfy WP:BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Right on. I think it's a better version. I'm also in agreement on having a brief mention of recent events that seem pretty well covered; what's there now isn't awful, but could be more succinct. The article generally has a problem with excessive detail, IMHO. I've given it a shot. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at what is there now and it looks much better. Except I see that the sexual orientation mention is still there, last few sentences under Personal and Education. Your earlier comment here agreed that it did not belong in the article. Oversight or change of mind? Interested to hear your thinking on this.Coaster92 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversight makes it sound dreadful. Let's call it negligence. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Unfortunately, Candle has readded material back into the lead, making it even more prominent than it was. I've reverted Candle's inappropriate edits, which he made without discussion. I've invited him to comment on the article Talk page and/or at BLPN. I've left a similar comment on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I performed what I hoped would be a compromise edit, removing insolvency but retaining mention of the company, the subject's work, and his lawsuits. But it was basically undone with a new WP:SPA re-inserting the insolvency in the lead. This after 3RR was recently approached. I've reverted for now, but any more quacking and this may begin to go down WP:SPI Street. JFHJr (㊟) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching your edits to the article, as well as your comment to Candle on the Talk page. I'm happy to leave you to it as, although Candle has for the moment stopped attacking me, my assumption is he'll respond better to you. If you need support, I'll jump back in. Otherwise, carry on. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr, I saw that you took out the orientation sentences and Candle put them back in, so I took them out as I believe the topic could be potentially libelous. I wouldn't say "negligent", maybe "busy".Coaster92 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the libel (untrue statements). It's pretty well sourced; do you think something is inaccurate? From what I can tell, you've removed uncontroversial prose on the subject's sexual orientation, claiming a basis in a discussion on removing the category. You've also said I previously removed it, but I don't recall removing that prose (diff please?). JFHJr (㊟) 05:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the material about Fletcher's male partner, although I pared it down to one sentence. It was well-sourced by the NYT and not even particularly controversial except perhaps for those who believe it's impossible for a person to have a same-sex relationship followed by an opposite-sex relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Earlier I asked if it is appropriate to discuss a subject's sexual orientation if they have not self-identified as gay. I thought JFHJr agreed that the topic should not be included in an article if the subject has not self-identified and the topic is not relevant to the article or their notoriety per above-cited WP:BLP section, per the April 27 and 28 comments we posted. But it sounds like I misunderstood? From the references presented, it does not look like it is inaccurate. I am just not sure what the protocol is on the topic and would like to know. Thank you.Coaster92 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Litigation section remains unclear. The article has long presented this section as being comprised of only two cases-- both filed by Fletcher himself, and both on grounds of alleged racism. It would appear these cases were singled out in the first place (and this section created) to show some sort of persecution of Mr. Fletcher. Regardless of one's views on that subject, it would seem that if a Litigation section is to be included, that it includes all verifiable, well-sourced lawsuits involving Mr. Fletcher-- or the section be removed altogether. I, and other editors (charmingly belittled in the write-up above, apparently, as SPAs. Nice) have tried to list the other known lawsuits and had them repeatedly and immediately reverted by BBb23. This being the case, can BBb23 please explain why he believes these two particular lawsuits are the only ones meriting inclusion in this section? The reasoning behind this would be much appreciated the next time I see my edits removed. That being said, I have no objections to BBb or anyone else removing the Litigation section altogether. Unless Mr. Fletcher is a lawyer, or his life defined by lawsuits, its inclusion seems incongruous with the rest of the article. (BTW, happy to hear that you find my edits "lovely", BBb) Thanks sjrcass (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I call you a SPA because you are a SPA. I called your edit lovely because you have a clear conflict and shouldn't even be touching the article, although you're welcome to comment here and on the article Talk page. With respect to a BLP, there's a significant difference between inserting positive material and inserting negative material. The positive material may not belong, but the bar for putting in negative material is higher. The Dakota litigation received a lot of publicity, making it fairly noteworthy. I'm not as convinced that the Kidder lawsuit belongs. I'd have to look for more sources. Those that are there don't do a good job of telling what happened. Putting aside the primary source, one source says he filed a discrimination claim for back pay. Fine. The second source says he was awarded some money, but it's not clear the basis for the award. I took out the material that said that it wasn't for the discrimination allegations because the source simply didn't make that clear. Still, the fact that he sued and won is more notable than suits that haven't been resolved or resulted in supposed settlements. The sexual harassment suit resulted in a "reported" confidential settlement, so the matter wasn't even adjudicated. The other lawsuit apparently hasn't even been resolved, AND the material added to the article was a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See BLP policy for reasons to omit sexual harassment allegations. The other suit involving a movie company seems itself not to be the subject of nearly as much note. The sole cite given in support only briefly mentioned the suit at the end of its article about another more prominent lawsuit. Encyclopedic biographies are not the news, and they don't have to report on everything within a given topic, contrary to the assertion above. Only events and details that are of enduring biographical significance should appear, and they should be given due weight. The reasons for removal have been given amply further above in this discussion. And the position taken by apparent former Fletcher employee Sjrcass (talk · contribs) above is contrary to core policies and guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Also, thanks for clarifying the reasons for using SPA. It sounded a lot more like you were using the term to disparage all edits (and editors) that didn't agree with your own view, which is clearly frowned upon here (as you'll know, of course). That said, I will step out of the editing given the COI. However, it should be noted here, as a primary source (I was a Managing Director at Fletcher) that Fletcher has had an additional 2 sexual harassment suits that I am aware of. If there is a blanket policy for not including sexual harassment suits, then fine, leave them out. But I believe they define who Fletcher is as much as the Kidder or Dakota lawsuits-- insomuch as they are examples of behavior that is both apparently persistent, and apparently bought off with settlements. The two mentioned are well-sourced and the plaintiffs named. BBb also mentions that the Seven Arts lawsuit should be removed as it isn't resolved. I accept that-- but neither is the Dakota lawsuit. Should it not therefore also be removed? A recurring theme in the literature on Mr. Fletcher seems to be the much publicized "donation" of things (University Chairs, educations grants, movie funding), that ultimately turn out to be much less than promised, or non-existent. It is an important theme in his life and deserves, given the number of reputable fact-checked sources (WSJ, NYT, Boston Magazine) pointing it out, to be included in some way. As other editors have said, I have found BBb23s edits somewhat peremptory and "abusive." But I appreciate he/she is sincerely trying to do what is right by the guidelines here. I would ask, however, for there to be more balance in this article. In full disclosure, I was Fletcher's college roommate and close friend for years. I have stayed away from his life and story for over 15 years and have no desire to go back. But I do see that the truth (well-sourced, verifiable, balanced truth) needs to out-- not from an advocacy point of view, but simply because it is key to understanding Mr. Fletcher. Finally, if someone is a hedge fund manager, then I would have thought that the most important thing in their life-- what defines them-- is the success or failure of their fund. How can the insolvency and court-stated "worthlessness" of their fund not deserve more weight-- especially in the lead? Fletcher is a hedge fund manager and his fund has apparently lost over $100 million. That is not "unresolved" and it is not insignificant. That would seem to be lead material. Good luck and thanks for the consideration. sjrcass (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for clarifying who you are and your conflict and for agreeing to stop editing the article (I'll ignore your insults). Second, you shouldn't conclude that there is a blanket policy that sexual harassment lawsuits can never be included in an article per policy. That's not a correct interpretation of JFHJr's point. Third, the Dakota lawsuit may not have completed yet, but there was a lot of publicity about the problems at the Dakota leading up to the suit, which makes it more noteworthy, not as adjudicated litigation but as part of the broader story.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:MurasakiSunshine‎#Lawsuits with the Mogen clamp

MurasakiSunshine recently added some dubious material that had been removed from Mogen clamp due to BLP concerns, amongst others. In addition to often-poor sourcing, I am particularly concerned about the unnecessary identification of individuals through their full names, especially the child named in the final paragraph. The user has refused to remove the child's name. In my view this violates the presumption in favor of privacy — what do others think? Jakew (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JakeW is grasping at straws. All of the information on my page is available by public record and anyone with Google can find that information. Obviously parents and children did not mind sharing their identities with the public as they posed for pictures, gave their names, shared details of their legal case and the judgement, the nature of the lawsuit, and gave interviews. That is consent to the public knowing about their situation. People who don't want their name in the paper do not go to publications and give interviews for millions of people to read about. Also, I don't need to source anything that is written on my personal page because it's not a Wikipedia article. Since my sourcing is "so poor" according to JakeW, maybe these people or companies don't even exist. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Agree on the child's name. Per WP:BLPNAME, "caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event" and "the brief appearance of names in news stories" is not sufficient justification for inclusion. MurasakiSunshine's justification that "they went on record in public ... I'm guessing they'll be okay with having their name and face out there" applies only to the parents, how can we know or decide that a nine-year old is OK with this, and that he'll still be OK with this in 10 years time? January (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Terrel posed for pictures to be used by the press as well. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

He's nine years old, he would hardly have understood the possible implications of the information being included in Wikipedia. Also, BLP applies in all namespaces including your user page, see WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply. January (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Consenting to be featured in a publication is consent to have that publication passed around. If you don't want you story out there, don't go to the news. And my sources are valid and available on Google. Anyone Googling "Mogen clamp injury" would be directed to Terrel's story. What difference does it make if I put the story on my page, which will be read by maybe 10 people, or if a million people find it on Google? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

A nine-year old cannot give informed consent. Re your argument about Google, that may be the case now but the news stories will become less prominent on the web as time passes, Wikipedia on the other hand ranks very prominently in search engines and it could be very embarrasing for him if our article ended up as the top hit on his name when he's at high school or looking for work. User pages also appear in search engines. January (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So, the news should never report on anything about people under the age of 18, even when they consent and their parents consent and Wikipedia should never report on those stories? And do you know how many Terrel Halls there are in the world? It's not as if he's got a unique name. And again, you overestimate the popularity of my Wiki page. As it's still rather recent news, it's still popular on Google. I can promise you that 99.9999% of people who know Terrel Hall, Jr. had his glans amputated during neonatal circumcision did not find that out from my Wiki user page. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

I'm not commenting on what the news media should do, I'm only commenting on what Wikipedia should do. The issue here is inclusion of the name, I don't think anyone has proposed that we don't include this story at all. January (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If I remove it, anyone who clicks on a link to the story from my page will clearly read "Terrel Hall, Jr." So, what does it matter if I remove the name or not if people are going to find the name out anyway if they bother to actually research the story? It's just kind of pointless in my opinion when as soon as they read the story, they're one click away from his picture, name, his parents' names, and where he lives. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

(ec) In the article I removed names but left the story. I'm not sure that the story should be included on a user page, which (per WP:USER) "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". But that's largely a separate issue from BLP concerns, so I won't press the point here. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who searches revision will find the name. Anyone who does 1 second of research will find the name. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

We know we can't prevent people from seeing his name in news articles and we're not trying to, but putting it in Wikipedia makes it more visible and more prominent in search engines, which will become increasingly significant when this story is no longer recent news. On your user page, you are clearly at this point using it to store your preferred version of disputed content which is not acceptable per WP:UP#COPIES, particularly when the content is disputed on BLP grounds. January (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not disputed. Even if I removed Terrel's name, I posted that story based on details of the case file, interviews, and major news publications. I can back it up. Also, it's not insignificant. This child had his penis destroyed by a doctor who was forced to pay him nothing and by a circumcision clamp that is still in use and people believe is safe. If I knew five or six people lost their glans penis to the Mogen clamp, I would definitely not opt for the Mogen clamp to circumcise my son with. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

Anyway, I've got to go to work so I'll remove Terrel's name for now. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

Common sense should win out here, not the need to put out every bit of information available on a particular person, the more so when a minor child is involved. It's ridiculous to involve a minor and, in my opinion, should be avoided if at all possible.Hushpuckena (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. I have removed it per WP:BLP. Also, Murasaki Sunshine, please learn to use colons to indent. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The content has been replaced and remains BLP-problematic. At the outset, it looks like a WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:CONTENTFORK for material that was rejected over BLP problems. The prose contains several individuals' names, ranging from doctors to judges and attorneys, citing to legal complaints. They're not acceptable sources generally or under BLP policy. There are oodles of inline external links linking to the likes of business addresses and phone numbers. So far, editorial consensus indicates the material doesn't belong. Perhaps the OP might consider posting the restoration of problematic BLP material against consensus at WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Land

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, page protected. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jlgowls has repeatedly deleted references Richard Land's involvement in plagiarism, despite those references being sources. A question directed at Jlgowls has gone unanswered, and there has been no discussion / explanation for removing those references on the entry's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesTowerJoy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Give the other editor some time to respond, but you've done the right thing by posting to the talk page. The USA Today reference is good, but you need to consider the WP:WEIGHT of the issue in terms of the subject's whole career. The Interior (Talk) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the weight issue. But the person is question is the point person on ethics for the Southern Baptist Convention, though, so the plagiarism issue seems to me worthy of inclusion. BluesTowerJoy (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should include it, but I think that having a dedicated section heading for it may be placing a lot of emphasis on it. It'd be best if we did some re-org, and placed it within a neutrally-worded section, perhaps "Career". The Interior (Talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I have repeatedly removed the references is because the so-called plagarism charges are not valid. His board looked into the issue, and there was not any plagarism! Too, he most certainly did not "admit" to any plagarism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlgowls (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so are we to believe USA Today has fabricated this quote, ""On occasion I have failed to provide appropriate verbal attributions on my radio broadcast, Richard Land Live!, and for that I sincerely apologize. I regret if anyone feels they were deceived or misled. That was not my intent nor has it ever been," [2]? The Interior (Talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think it's true that his board has dismissed the charges. What they said was this: "Dr. Land has admitted that he quoted sections of articles related to the Trayvon Martin matter in his Richard Land Live! radio broadcast without giving clear and proper credit to the authors of those articles. We understand that additional instances of this kind in connection with the Richard Land Live! program may come to light." http://erlc.com/article/statement-from-erlc-trustee-executive-committee/ BluesTowerJoy (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be recurring. JLGowls has been blocked, and now a new user (Arg2003) is deleting material without discussion.BluesTowerJoy (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvey Pitt

Resolved

 – Criticism section redacted. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvey Pitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is libelous information in the criticism portion, such as him being responsible in any way for the housing/mortgage crisis. This needs to be taken out and the person who inserted it needs to be banned from making any additions to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Gettingitaccurate (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 May 2012

This bio had a lot of both positive and negative info, some unsourced, some sourced to primary sources, some to opinion pieces. I've trimmed it down. It'll have to be expanded using better sources. As to banning the user, we would need to see a continued pattern of breaking our policies, and that would only be after discussion with the user. The edit I believe you're referring to was a bit problematic in terms of WP:NPOV, but nothing blockable. The Interior (Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Clivel 0 and User:Johannes due

Resolved

 – Sourcing seems reliable, weight probably does not violate BLP. Re-post as necessary or continue at WP:RSN. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Johan Galtung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These users add a libelous, highly POV and grossly undue section, with the libelous and POV title "Accusations of anti-Semitism", to the article Johan Galtung (the article already has a criticism section, btw.). They also tried to add this material to the Norwegian version of that article, where it had to be removed by administrators and the article protected to prevent its readdition. (Galtung's daughter-in-law is Jewish, so this is a particularly offensive accusation in this case). Tertoger (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the nature of your complaint. It appears that the material you are removing is very well sourced, with references to HaAretz. Although consensus should be obtained when adding material like this to the article, it appears to me that you are simply removing well-sourced material; there's a word around here for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, the word is maintaining the WP:BLP policy, and users who repeatedly add defamatory material need to be blocked, per policy. It does not matter if there are (one-sided) sources for POV-worded cherry picked material, adding an attack section with the libelous title "Accusations of anti-Semitism" is a violation of the BLP policy. Apart from that, this is classical example of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NOTNEWS, the attack section/POV cruft section is also completely unencyclopedic. We do not simply make an entire section called "Accusations of anti-Semitism" in Barack Obama's article merely because someone opposed to him says so. Let me remind you that the identical section was removed from the Norwegian Wikipedia article by an administrator as a violation of the BLP policy and the article protected for that reason. Something's that's a violation of the BLP policy on the Norwegian Wikipedia, in an article about a Norwegian person, is probably also a violation of that policy here. Tertoger (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

HaAretz is hardly a good source for a debate in an obscure publication in Norway, in the Norwegian language. Tertoger (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you imagine there are no native Hebrew speakers who can learn Norwegian? If you have a problem with HaAretz, take it to WP:RSN. I get the impression you are having a hard time with the notion of editing by consensus. There's another word around here for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Thomas

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rick Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to BLP policy, "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) 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."

This article is horrendously written and completely unsourced... I'm sort of amazed it hasn't been deleted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.105.56 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heads up! Article stubbed, nommed for deletion (see link above) *but* have stumbled across a series of either totally unreffed bios or bios reffed to forum posts or blogs all related to the band Mushroomhead, the content is unencyclopaedic, the different people all appear non-notable and most of what is posted is pure OR, PEACOCK, WEASEL and/or in violation of BLP.
• Could editors to this noticeboard go through the following (s)hitlist, stubbing and AfDing as they see fit as I have to get off-wiki now and cannot deal with this can of worms alone? Thanks in advance.
  • Waylon Reavis
  • Jeffrey Hatrix
  • Steve Felton
  • Tom Schmitz
  • Jack Kilcoyne
  • John Sekula

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at (and a knife to) the above articles. I hope you'll consider creating a batch AfD to include all individual members that fail WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. The hard part will be distinguishing which members have joined at least two notable ensembles; it may be that one or two have. Keep in mind, it may be best to have a look at the articles here on the bands. They have been created, but there's no indication of notability in the articles themselves; a GNG evaluation for each one is something you'll need to carry out pre-WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks, in fact I'm waiting for the result of the current AfD about Rick Thomas, a bit of a no-brainer that it will be deleted, then I'll do a group AfD for all of the other memebers that fail the above criteria. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitch Vogel

Mitch Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Gunsmoke episode of McCabe is somewhat similar to an episode in which Mitch Vogel played the son of an outlaw and whose mother had died. I believe the sheriff's name was the same but there were notable differences in the out come as his father was lynched before Marshall Dillon arrived. Either there were two different stories or the one listed in the article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawleigh Man (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Gunsmoke often used recycled scripts (I know the radio show did), so this may not necessarily be a mistake. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The information in question is not well sourced; it apparently cites the IMDB, which contains user-generated content. It can be removed (though I'll decline to do so myself). Lots of the biography is unsourced, and much of the content speaks to the portrayal and storyline of a fictional character who is not a living person, although it is clearly part of a living person's biography. On balance, the information is highly relevant, and is probably accurate, but needs better sourcing. I don't find it contentious, though. JFHJr (㊟) 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert

Resolved

 – BLP stubbed for reliable sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gilbert does not appear to be a notable individual, his only claim to fame being a handful of self-produced direct-to-DVD documentaries on conspiracy-esque subjects, and belonging to a local cover band. All of the external links are to pages Gilbert himself owns. His page has been tagged for notability for over a year and a half.

Moreover, it appears that Gilbert himself (or someone close to him) may be responsible for nearly the entire article. The page was created by 'Sweethominy,' and roughly half the edits are by that same individual. Sweethominy has made only one edit on any other Wikipedia page, and that was to add a reference to one of Gilbert's videos to another page. As such, the page appears to be little more than a self-congratulatory effort at pretending he is a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorencollins (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Gilbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - comments here virtually a dupe of comments there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

Resolved

 – Semi-protected 2 weeks. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have attempted to make the article more WP:NPOV, but an IP editor refuses to let me make any changes. For background, he is a former environmental and anti-war activist from the 1960's who was later convicted of murder. There is controversy over his role in the creation of Earth Day. The IP editor is reverting to a [[3]] which is potentially troublesome as the lede goes on a rant that says he is lying. This is at least very POV. My version attempts to simply list the [opposing] sides. I have reliable sources saying that he was an activist in the 60's and 70's, and that he has claimed to be involved in Earth Day, and other sources disputing this. But the user keeps reverting that. The exact truth of his exact involvement is not something I personally know.

I apologize if this is not the right board to take this to. I am not certain if the IP edits constitute libel or not. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've requested page protection because the IP is not participating in discussion despite several attempts in edit summaries, talk page, and user talk page posts. JFHJr (㊟) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My request was declined, and the Czech IP was blocked for 2 days. During this time, a New York IP repeated the edits. Harizotoh9 re-requested protection; it was protected for 2 weeks. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Carlisle

Resolved

 – Content sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Carlisle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I went to high school with Rick Carlisle, currently the head coach of the Dallas Mavericks. It says he attended Worchester Academy. This is untrue. Rick went to Lisbon Central High school in Lisbon New York. He graduated in 1978 and then pursued his college ambitions.

Never has he attended Worchester Academy as Lisbon Central is a school that serves K-12 grades and I graduated in 1977 and my brother graduated in 1978 with Rick. I even have the high school yearbook to prove it.

Thought you might be interested in this as your website's information regarding his school is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.28.127 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the error here. Unfortunately, the changes you made are not supported by a reliable source. The yearbook in question might be reliable, but I'm not sure how editors will consider its verifiability; old yearbooks can be hard to obtain. A citation to it might be helpful. In the meantime, I've removed mention of any school since it's currently unsupported. JFHJr (㊟) 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources say that he went to both schools. [4][5] I've restored and sourced the information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Apologies for missing those. JFHJr (㊟) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Brown

Resolved

 – BLP violating content removed; article at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Brown (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Nathan Brown and this bio page is being used by a disgruntled former partner to libel and defame me. I would like the page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.168.210 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User adding defamatory content warned, [6], does this person actually meet Wikipedia:GNG?

To IP, we don't know who you are, if you are who you say you are, and are notable, the article will be kept (except in exceptional circumstances), for the moment the insults have been reverted and the user warned. Anyone care to dig a little deeper? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a mess. I've slashed it to one sentence. The rest of it I could not make heads nor tails of. I'm not even sure what he is. One of the cited sources didn't mention him. The other said he presented an award. And the last was his own website, but the About link went to his article here. The name is common, and without having a clue what he's supposed to be notable for, I was unwilling to do searches, so I just nominated him, and we'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Good move, I've given it a look-in. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Brown (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mervyn King (economist)

The article on Mervyn King (economist) contains a section that reads like an essay from someone ideologically opposed to his views. The references cited include journalists with a similar ideology. It doesn't seem neutral to me. The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your right - welcome to en wikipedia - policy and guidelines here are weak and implementation of them is even weaker - content here is biased and partisan and attracts biased users because of that weakness of policy application - recent additions this report is related to were by User:Iloveandrea - a user I have encountered previously in regards to disputed additions in regard to living people - Youreallycan 19:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really have to seize every opportunity to criticize policy and, in this instance, unnamed editors (and bolded yet)? If you want to change policy you believe is too weak, then go to the policy Talk page and start a discussion. See WP:SOAPBOX.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The cause of the report is relevant, completely relevant - as is making as many good faith npov contributors as possible aware of the fact. As for attempting to strengthen and implement policy here ...experienced users have recently commented how it has become impossible, a waste of time attempting to improve policy - all we can do, and all I am prepared to waste my valuable time on these days is respond to reports of violations as best we can - I also made some corrective edits to the article content and removed a copyright violating picture and identified the user responsible and made him known to others so that others can watchlist - thanks Youreallycan 06:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I am generally supportive of your contributions to improving BLP articles. My comment wasn't intended to diminish those contributions. Also, you've achieved part of your purpose as I am now watching the King article and grappling with the user you mentioned. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that Bbb23 - I knew it anyways but its nice to hear it. As for the other user - Iloveandrea - sigh indeed - the exact same profile/edit pattern occurred when I last met them - sure - their additions are more or less cited, but its written from an undue and opinionated position - .... and "add some positive content then" just doesn't cut it - Youreallycan 17:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's a "waste of time attempting to improve policy", then kindly refrain from attempting to do so here. As suggested, see WP:SOAPBOX. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You are just unable to stay away from me are you - you appear to be fixated on me - coming to wikipedia and making a single edit to snipe at me , after I have repeatedly asked you to observe a voluntary interaction ban, totally unnecessarily just repeating the comment fromBbb23, another one for my report Youreallycan 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Freshman essay. C-minus at best. Full of pinions not clearly cited as such, and without any balance thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Did some edits - got reverted by an editor who liked it as it was. Sigh. Collect (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning given to the persistent editor. Collect (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I know your heart was in the right place, but you also reverted some valid intervening edits (mine), which I have tediously restored. I also removed all those ridiculous quote boxes per WP:QUOTATION. The article is truly messy, particularly for such a notable figure.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So finally someone (Collect) has the good manners to leave a link to this page. Good, because it means that I can point out that Youreallycan has never encountered me before; s/he simply saw on my talk page that I made a couple of edits that other people didn't like and decided to then engage in sheer fabrication. Let her/him show an article where we've discussed any BLP together before. S/he won't be able to, for the reason already given.
"'add some positive content then' just doesn't cut it"—but it does. Are you saying we should balance Hitler's article with positive praise? If the criticism is mainstream and widespread, it is fair to be included regardless of any whining about 'POV'. If you can find some overall positives about King's governorship, please make me aware of them; I've already asked this and been met with silence. I'm having stuff chopped out from a criticism section because it is POV: perhaps the individuals concerned can explain how it is possible to mention criticism of someone without involving a point of view. I can tone down the bits of the article that I wrote, but to argue that it is POV to have the article assert such inconvertible facts that he didn't understand what the consequences of massive housing bubbles would be; that there were people there who knew what they were talking about who did know what the consequences would be; that he had a Greenspan policy of letting bubbles grow unchecked and contrast that policy of inaction with successful action taken in other countries (China, Australia); that his policy of price stability was an unmitigated failure (even King admits so); and that the guy has a real attitude problem according to any number of current and former colleagues, is utterly ridiculous. I've had cites chopped out that are from the Financial Times for god's sake. It's the pathetically transparent attempts to whitewash such abject failure that is so nauseating. Like I said, I can tone it down, and I was unaware of policy regarding quote-box usage (no point in trying to argue that one), which is what I think the real problems are, but cutting bits out purely on the basis that you have a soft spot for Mervyn King (more likely his hero, Alan Greenspan) is not acceptable. Note I've not tried to chop out any positive praise—those who insist on balance, and who thus assume that there are positives to balance the negatives, have so far failed to provide any. The rest of the article I have not done anything with, and I couldn't care less about. A few basic, uncontroversial criticisms are not too much if expressed more delicately.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to give you some idea of the stupidity and ignorance that is now attempting to 'correct' the article, they introduced and Wikilinked a journalist called "Dean King of The American Prospect". NO SUCH TAP JOURNALIST EXISTS. So ignorant that they haven't heard of Dean Baker, an American economist who was writing an article for the magazine. What next, reporter Paul Kingman of The New York Times? This is the calibre of person I'm reduced to dealing with, people so ignorant they invent a journalist who should have been an economist, and can't even recognise the error. Do me a favour and stay off the article if you don't know what you're talking about. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your comments here ("whitewash" "nauseating" "whining" "soft spot" "Hitler") are as over-the-top as your edits to the article. Criticism of a BLP has to be applied with some attention to phrasing and weight regardless of whether there is counterbalancing material. As for YRC, he can take care of himself, but he doesn't have had to have discussed anything with you to have seen your edits and formed a view as to your approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"the exact same profile/edit pattern occurred when I last met them" He has not met me. That was the claim; I ask for proof to the contrary. We're not talking about forming an opinion about me. "Hitler": you don't appear capable of even understanding why I picked him as an example. As for my tone here: if people want to adopt sneering arrogance towards me, you can bet I will do the same in return. At least there's some justification when I do it. Here is who they mistook Dean Baker for, some obscure "author of narrative non-fiction on adventure, historical and maritime subjects". :-) Pretty funny. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We met on the George Osbourne biography talkpage link to that issue - where you did exactly the same as you are doing here- adding undue opinionated content which resulted in what was imo - attack content - you appear to have been back there doing the exact same again also - I have reverted your opinionated POV alterations there although a user I have a following problem with, User:Nomoskedasticity followed me there and as usual reverted me yet again - Youreallycan 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've come across the same editor and come to the same conclusion. Before your revert, the article George Osborne was little more than a hatchet job. And it's hardly alone - so far as I have seen, this editor's writing on these subjects has been strongly biased. That applies both to BLPs and other articles - see the article United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme or recent changes to Project Merlin for example. Kahastok talk 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the Dean Baker/King error. It was apparently introduced here. My assumption is it was inadvertent, meaning Collect wanted to note the name of the journalist and confused it because of Mervyn's last name - Collect can better address that minor issue if he wishes to. Your unwarranted personal attacks, along with all of your other comments, aren't going to help your position. You're just shooting yourself in the foot.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa on the confused edit <g>. There was a lot to try dealing with, and I did not want to make to many edits at one time even whee te article was a melange of non-utile argumentation about the living person. Collect (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---George Osborne--- George Osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ah, suddenly all niceness. "Your unwarranted personal attacks..." I really must bring your attention again to the fact that I did not set the tone here; I jumped in halfway through, remember? Don't like my tone? Take it up with the people who were posting here before I arrived. "confused it because of Mervyn's last name..." No, really? Thanks ever so much for pointing that out. You could run Ed Witten close for smarts, no question. I couldn't do this without you. Jesus, do you actually read what I write? or are you just too limited to comprehend it? I know the source of confusion—it could scarcely be any more obvious—the fact of it was so utterly hilarious that I decided to remark on it. "George Osbourne"—I'm sorry, who is this person? I don't know him. Do you mean George Osborne? You STILL can't even spell his name. Really quite a concentration of rank stupidity and ignorance I've found here. Comical: I see someone's set up a re-direct to assist with this sort of benightedness. I repeat my observation that this is the calibre of mind I am forced to deal with. Do you have any idea how degrading this is for me? to be forced into discussion with such pea-sized intellects? people who can't spell names? people who mistake obscure authors for economists that get name-checked in the NYT? Yeah, I'm really humbled by the mental capacity and expansive knowledge displayed by the people here.

Youreallycan's evidence: When I go to the talk page I see no mention of Youreallycan, but I see Off2riorob... I see. So people like to switch accounts, do they? But tell me: do you switch accounts often? or do you just flit onto a new one when your bias has become so obvious that getting through wholesale, protective truncations for your beloved Tories and their supporters in central banks becomes too much of a chore? Makes me very suspicious of you—do you run socks? Am I allowed other a fresh start? with a new IP address perhaps. That would really come in handy, make my life easier. Did you see Youreallycan/Off2rio eliminate even a mention of Osborne's almost sexual relationship with Murdoch and his cronies? I left it a short while then just added it back. It's still there in Gideon's (Private Eye, no credit) article, and rightly so.

Off2rio/Youreallycan/whoever: Can I make a request? Is it possible to have someone come here who has functioning brain cells? That would really help me interact in a less negative way. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)#

Yes - read the above comments and see the problem - User:Nomoskedasticity has 3rr warned me about the content - myself I hate the subject so what the f*** - the content User:Nomoskedasticity has added to the article is attacking the subject so ... The other supporter of this content , User:Iloveandrea clearly has npov issues on this subject Youreallycan 22:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: I'm not endorsing any particular version -- I simply think it's inappropriate for you to revert >4 months of editing by 17 different editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As I told you - and you can and should investigate and take total responsibility for the content yourself if you are going to add content to a Biography - Youreallycan 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• to be clear - I personally am opposed to the subject of the articles policies ... however - I hate biased contributions - the user Iloveandrea is following a pattern of POV contributions - User:Nomoskedasticity is reverting me and adding biased content, but he reverts me almost anywhere ... and the User:Iloveandrea has replaced their opinionated content Youreallycan 22:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bleh - check Iloveandrea's recent talk page messages and the words "vast right-wing conspiracy" come to mind. Never mind that we have an article on government policy that refuses to make any attempt to put the government POV, and multiple BLPs being filled with streams of biased information. Apparently only a Tory voter could possibly want an article on George Osborne to do anything short of attack him for everything that he's done in the last ten years. Kahastok talk 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• User: Iloveandrea was blocked for three days , mostly for the his personal attacking comments in this thread. Perhaps NPOV editirs would go over his recent contribution history - especially to any content related to living people - if he returns to a similar patter I suggest we request a topic ban from all BLP article/content - thanks to all that contributed to resolving this - Youreallycan 15:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Townsend

• Eric Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jason Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have recently come into conflict on a different article with an editor who is close to the subject. This BLP is unreferecned and the editor claims that "you don't need citations for indisputable facts - like that the sun is in the sky". His logic is that since he knows these facts they're indisputable. Since that other discussion was so recent I would like to request that someone neutral please check the Eric Townsend article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Does "puff" mean anything? <g>. And will someone prune the discography, please? Collect (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved what looked like a WP:RESUME to the talk page. While some albums may be notable and noteworthy in their own right, the subject's particular contribution as producer should be sourced to reliable third parties in order to indicate encyclopedic and biographical significance. Likely not every credit will be significant in that way, but I imagine several will be if he's a notable producer. JFHJr (㊟) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing work editors. Appears that his brother, Jason Townsend requires a similar treatment, as does Tom Gulotta. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pruned. JFHJr (㊟) 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Camryn: OTRS request to remove the full name of a minor, who is a public entertainer

Resolved

 – Proposed edit declined. Remove this template in the event of further developments or discussion and/or re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Regarding OTRS ticket 2012031210006461, it's been requested that all references to Camryn's full real name be removed from the article. The request cites privacy concerns and minor's rights protections rather than fears about diluting her brand or public image. This performer's name is publicly available in sources like an early Denver Post article, Getty Images, more Getty Images, Fan sites, Flickr, MovieFone.com, local news, Artist Direct, Rocky Mountain News, Star Tribune, Cineplex.com (movie credits), international news, PopCandies TV (youtube), and Hollywood.com. In other words, the cat's out of the bag, but there is still a responsibility to respect the privacy of minors. With a public figure such as Camryn, where is the line we draw in this case? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since the Denver Post and Borneo Post are reporting her full name in the context of her career, rather than, say, a local school production, I see no reason that we should remove her name from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Her representation has said they intend to seek the retraction or concealment of all instances of her name, particularly if they can't get Wikipedia to do so first. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't dealt with this specifically, but I don't see much harm, and I see a fair bit of good, in removing the name in all instances from the article. The dilution of important information people wishing to read about her is tiny. So I have some sympathy for the removal request. I am, however, pretty sympathetic to keeping the redirect from the full name to the article in place, as people searching for more information, after having read stories such as the ones you cite above, are to be expected, and it's silly to think that someone who already knows her last name should be denied the rest of her biography on privacy grounds at that point. Again, this is my first gut reaction, and I'd love to hear other thoughts on the matter. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• It should be noted that her father is a notable person with an existing article here, and her mother is also active in the entertainment business and might be notable in her own right. See e.g. [7][8]. With due respect for the privacy of non-public-figure minors (and adults), I am not sure what values of privacy this request is intended to support.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  I wonder if part of their motivation is to keep her public reputation separate from her parents' notability. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. However, since this is publicly-reported information, the cat is, as said, out of the bag. We have no responsibility here to cooperate in reputation management or manipulation of her public image in order to separate it from that of her father or mother. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike. We don't unring bells or omit very basic information. Especially when it comes to any entertainer who voluntarily becomes a public figure, it's hard to identify what the removal of accurate information would achieve in terms of privacy, especially since her family relations are quite clear. At any rate, the correct order of operations is to seek retraction and removal from reliable sources first. If we're left with no reliable sources, we'll be more obliged to remove it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Francis

Resolved

 – WP:UNDUE content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a number of requested edits to this article as follows:

1. [Resolved. Thank you.]

2. Regarding the line: Francis and his company has come under legal scrutiny on a number of occasions. Recurring allegations include that footage of women engaged in sexual activity was used without the consent of the women, that Mantra Films engaged in sexual exploitation of minors, and that incomplete records were kept of participants in GGW videos." More neutral language could read: "Francis and Girls Gone Wild have come under legal scrutiny on occasion, including past allegations that footage of women in GGW videos was used without consent." Also, I point out that the source for this paragraph, is actually no longer available at the link. It is available here: http://www.vanessagrigoriadis.com/francis.html. It refers only to one case, the Gritzke matter, in which Gritzke alleged that her image/likeness was used without consent.

3. Regarding: "In June 2007, Francis and his company became the subject of a lawsuit claiming that images had been used without the subject's permission." Comment: this line should be stricken. The lawsuit referred to in the source article (brought by Plaintiffs Brooke Patsolic and Christina Brose, was dropped immediately when video evidencing their consent to be filmed was produced. See http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/28/francis-calls-b-s-on-girls-gone-litigious-claims.

4. Regarding the next line: "However, the plaintiff, Ashley Alexandra Dupré better known as the prostitute involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal that led to his resignation as New York governor in March 2008, dropped the suit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed." Makes more sense and is unbiased if it reads: "Ashley Alexandra Dupré, better known as the prostitute involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal that led to his resignation as New York governor in March 2008, filed, and then dropped a lawsuit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed."

Thank you. More on the way, but let's start here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaftergo (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some changes made - hopefully showing a sense ofbalance, and removing asides about other people where the information is of no value here. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Editorialising

Resolved

 – Editorializing removed. JFHJr (㊟) 19:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Capitol Punishment (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this after the author's bio was linked on another board in an unrelated minor dispute over wording.

The only issue brought here is editorialising, characterising the living person. Specifically: "x, usually described as a disgraced former lobbyist"

It's wholly appropriate to refer to a conviction, charges, and sentence using appropriate sources. The article does so with "served four years ... in federal prison ... after being convicted of specific-charges-here" immediately after. Rather than stop at that the user insists the subject be characterised. He's seen sources call him "disgraced / corrupt / ex-con" therefore holds our articles must.

Press sources even reputable ones use lurid terms like scandalous! disgraced etc. It doesn't mean we should, even if do we put it in quotes.

My contention is even with living persons who've been the subject of controversy the content should be non-sensationalist, neutral, disinterested. We're not a tabloid. I tried referring him to the BLP Policy on tone, but he just reverted the wording back in. Thoughts? --92.6.211.228 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting issue. The essential problem is this article is about Abramoff's book, not about Abramoff himself. Thus, putting in the material about what happened to Abramoff in 2006 at almost the top of the book article is inappropriate. However, Abramoff himself commented on the book in terms of his time in prison, so I wove that material in lower down as it relates to the book and gives context (his conviction and sentence) for one of his motivations for writing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I agree with your improvements. For that matter I agree with Ajnem's (user who reverted above) removal of the bracketed comment ("he claims the great majority of what he did was legal"). I might edit it so the middle still says the same as now without mentioning prison/jail thrice in the same small paragraph, but that's not a blp concern. Cheers, --92.6.211.228 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert McMurtry

Resolved

 – Unreliably sourced content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Robert McMurtry has not "recently embraced a belief in Wind Turbine Syndrome". What I have done is spend the last 4 years researching adverse health effects occurring in the environs of wind turbines. I have spoken at several government forums incluing municipal provincial and federal I have published a peer review journal the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, July 18a case definition as well as diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis. Finally I have appeared as the lead expert witness for the plaintiff in the land mark Chatham Kent EnvironmentalReview Tribunal. The key decision was that adverse health effects do occur and that the debate should now be about how serious those effects are. Robert McMurtry CM, MD , FRCSC, FACS, RACS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.10 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it, mainly because the reference did not meet WP:RS. What the article needs is references, and some cleanup so that it doesn't look like a resume. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Jones

Resolved

 – BLP policy allows this individual's true name to be included per reliable sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phoenix Jones is a community activist who dresses in a superhero costume and patrols the streets of Seattle stopping crimes (yes, literally), helping elderly women and so forth, and purporting to set the example that a regular person can make a difference. Phoenix Jones is his masked activist name, he has a conventional identity that was generally secret until he had to disclose it in court (and this was covered by some news sources). There are editors at the article who've made something of a big deal of, so to speak, exposing his identity. One editor in the discussion page went the original research extra mile in supposedly unveiling his driving record.

My position is that his real identity is separate from his hero persona and is a private individual that should be given full protection of WP:BLP as applied to private individuals. I propose to remove the text revealing his real identity from the page. If some editor feels his real identity is notable enough to warrant it, he or she can attempt to start an article for that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Our BLP policy does not require keeping connected identities "secret" when they have indeed been connected in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What about "[p]resumption in favor of privacy... people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private... When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your elisions distort the meaning of those passages and take them out of their proper context. This has already been pointed out to you on the article talk page. Kindly refrain from taking us as fools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I took you or anyone for a fool at all, Nomoskedasticity, and am genuinely surprised at that response. Neither do I believe I distorted that text at all by excerpting it as I did. I can't very well quote the entire policy. If I indeed somehow changed the meaning of those words, I assume you would be able to explain this more specifically? Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in case there's anyone out there concerned by these privacy matters I further noticed one of our intrepid editors had pinpointed and linked Phoenix Jones' real life identity's personal Facebook page (which of course is meant for his friends and family and makes no mention of the Phoenix Jones persona). Why would our "helpful" sleuth do such a thing? Because it "could provide additional information for research and may point to more reliable sources of information." Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm marking this issue resolved. The traffic and Facebook information seem to have been removed (if I'm wrong, remove them yourselves: traffic citations are rather useless as sources, and the WP:BLPSPS apparently lacks information tying the name to the character.) As for the name itself, the talk page was a sufficient forum, and those in discussion there came to a consensus to include based on WP:BLP. See also WP:DEADHORSE. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Race in lede?

Resolved

 – Generally omit. See WP:OPENPARA (which needs development) in regards to nationality or ethnicity. JFHJr (㊟) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

if I've posted this in the wrong area, please advise.

I am trying to find if Wikipedia has a specific policy regarding mentioning a person's race in the opening lede. If a person was born in the United States but their parents were born in China do we say Chinese-American? You don't identify a white person as Caucasian-American. For example Wikipedia refers to Lucy Liu in the lede only as an American Actress. What I'm looking for is where Wikipedia specifically deals with this. I've tried searching. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen what reliable sources say the person self-identifies as? -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, there is some amount of variation in articles on that point and I do not think there's policy that says "do this" or "do that." In the case of a Jeremy Linn for example I think it's inconsequential and accurate to describe him as a Chinese American. In the case of a Tiger Woods, IIRC he invented some term for his mixed race ethnicity, and I would consider us bound to respect that. If you feel awkward about identifying race in some particular article, I'd say just link a reliable source, and if there isn't one, leave it out. As well I don't see a problem with the term Caucasian American. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue is actually covered, albeit not perfectly in my view, in WP:OPENPARA. In the case of a person like Lucy Liu, it should say American as her parents' nationality is irrelevant to the lead. It would be harder if she had been born in China but moved to the U.S., say at 5 years old. I still say it should be American actress as that would be where she achieved notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead is usually not the best place for most mentions of race. It might be appropriate where a particular ethnicity is more or less congruent to nationality and it has context in notability, for example "Tamil Tiger," "Uighur activist," or "Navajo chief." Note this is pretty different from flatly stating "so-and-so is a Tamil/Uighur/Navajo." In the body, though, mentioning race probably alright with reliable sources. Categories are also less restrictive than mentions in the lead. JFHJr (㊟) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not including the "nationality" in the lead is generally a thankless task (note that American is not a race and even Chinese is not a race (Asian would might be)). The only time I've removed this designation from a lead is when there's a hopeless dispute about someone based on birth place, where they achieve notability, and even the ambiguity of the birth place. Then, I've suggested just leaving it out. That usually sticks for a short time before someone comes along and puts one of the disputed choices back in. Sometimes I just give up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Asian" a race? You're kidding, surely. Many countries place much less emphasis on the issue of race than the US. And race is an unclear concept anyway. Please don't apply your own views to all articles. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, pooh, even our article that you flippantly cite to discusses the fact that in some places Asian is considered a race. I agree that how you racially classify human beings is complicated and there is much dispute among scholars and governments on how to do it. Nonetheless, most people would agree that Chinese refers to a country and that Asia refers to a continent and that more people would be likely to label Asian a race than Chinese (or any other country in Asia). In any event, your last comment is unwarranted as the lead isn't supposed to contain one's race per WP:OPENPARA. I've also struck the word "would" from my comment and replaced it with "might" based on your charming comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Chinese is widely used as a race in many places, just as Asian is. In fact, in some countries, particularly those in Asia, Chinese is regularly used as either a race or an ethnicity, but Asian rarely is. And many people use 'Asian' to refer to the fact they come from Asia, without intending it to confer any racial implications (or at least other then to imply they are one of a number of distantly related races which in some cases may be more related to other races they wouldn't consider Asian). I do agree this discussion is OT and not helpful so won't be continuing it further. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence should only give the person's nationality; "American writer", "British actor", or at most "Australian-Canadian" comedian in the case of clear dual nationality. The article on Martin Luther King leads with "was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement." The article on Muhammed Ali says "an American former professional boxer". Try changing either to "African-American" an see what happens! My experience is that it is BLP of Asians which editors (usually inexperienced) keep adding "Chinese-American" or "Japanese-British", etc. I think Wikipedia needs a clear policy on this. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. JFHJr (㊟) 04:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And as for "Asian" and "Chinese," they're singularly unhelpful in an opening statement unless it's "Chinese" and only about citizenship (cf. nationality/ethnicity; sorry for changing terminology, but I think this is otherwise in line with above). China and Russia, for example, recognize several nationalities and minorities, which oftentimes coincide with ethnicity. A differentiation may be called for when it's, let's say, a "Uighur activist," but perhaps not "Tibetan politician" (in favor of "Chinese politician" – citizenship over ethnicity/subsidiary nationality when most relevant). While "Asian" is used in some census reporting, it's a wildly imprecise, and as far as racial/ethnic terms, should probably be put as far as "Han," "Zhou," "Jarai," or "Vietnamese," for example. JFHJr (㊟) 04:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Asian as race, see http://www.census.gov/population/race/ -- "OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, too, Sarek, which is why I said it depends on governments and context (OMB is, of course, American).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Breanna Manning

Resolved

 – Original name and gender retained. Change in the subject's identity must be by consensus based on reliable sources, but not from absence of evidence to the contrary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notification posted to Talk:Breanna Manning, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, User talk:Adjwilley, User talk:SlimVirgin

I've got a serious problem with the article about Breanna Manning, which is currently undergoing a Good Article review.I've posted a bit about it here, but, put simply, the article wilfully uses pronouns and names that do not correspond to MOS:IDENTITY, which states:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time).

Now, given the nature of her trial, it would seem it would be clear-cut to use female pronouns. But, since her gender incongruence has become public, there have been editors that have refused to correct the gender, despite the fact there is a massive section called "Gender identity disorder, demotion and discharge", on the basis that she is referred to as a man called Bradley Manning in reliable sources. However, her gender incongruence has also been covered by reliable sources, including the Lamo chats (which have been verified, otherwise they wouldn't have been used), and the New York source which talks about her transition starting in her teens and talking to a counsellor about genital reconstructive surgery.

As I said, it should be an open-and-cut case. MOS:IDENTITY is clear that we should refer to people as they would like to be referred to, if that is backed up by reliable sources (c.f. Lady Gaga, not Stefani Germanotta). It's especially exacerbated by the fact that being immortalised as male, as such a Wikipedia article does (in contravention of the facts), was something that Manning did not want, which means we have an ethical obligation to get it right.

As such, I've moved the article and am currently in the process of correcting the gender to her latest expressed identity, which is female. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved back. That was fairly arrogant to move a page when there is a consensus to keep as it is. What reliable sources are you stating for these concerns? Also, I don't see the sysop bit on you; how did you adjust move protections on this article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement of BLP is recognised to be paramount and, as a foundation decree, can override local consensus to violate BLP. As to the sources, the New York source, as linked in the article, talks about how Manning started to transition to female in her teens. Her email to her superiors about presenting as female are documented in the records of the Article 32 hearing, as reported by ABC. And, massively as all, her chats to Lamo are clear that she wishes to be female. Despite how the press refers to her, it is clear that she identifies as female, which is the only thing needed per MOS:IDENTITY. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost. First, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not a policy, and although I do see a BLP issue here, I don't see it as an egregious issue that warrants overriding consensus. Second, uh, what consensus? Other than an offhand comment, I don't see any discussion on the article Talk page about Manning's gender identity and how we should handle it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I might add that regardless of any supposed consensus, controversial moves should be discussed. And "move wars" are very much frowned on. I ain't touching it, but I think the article should be restored back to before the move.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"It's a guideline" is a bad argument; you should follow guidelines anyway, and while there is a bit of leeway with guidelines, when we're talking about BLP issues, that leeway doesn't exist. I do think, given what she said to Lamo in the chatlogs, that she was particularly unhappy with the prospect of being immortalised as male; while I appreciate that it's more of an ethical concern, BLP does concern ethical treatment of living people above all. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Berean that your moving the article twice (the second time after Berean moved it back) based on your unilateral interpretation of just about everything is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Berean. I don't see a strong argument that the two page moves to the female title are mandated by BLP. I would support moving it back, until a strong consensus can be obtained to move. --John (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus in this archive. Sceptre has screwed up the archiving with his move so those pages aren't currently accessible. Again, Sceptre, are you an admin? By what ability are the pages being protected? Why are Manning's attorneys still calling him a "he"?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Berean, thanks for the archive pointer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that this non-consensual move was an un-warranted and arrogant action. In addition your move has led to the page being listed as un-reviewed at WP:GAN, even though there is an active review underway. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Sceptre on naming. It seems fairly clear that Manning wishes to be referred to as "she" - this is very, very well documented. Given that it is so well documented, and given that we have to have this discussion at all, I think the "might be questioned" requirement is pretty well filled :P.
• We should try to follow guidelines wherever possible, particularly when they have important tie-ins such as our treatment of living people. Indeed, the only real reason not to follow it would be some argument as to why this article is an exception to that guideline, or an overriding policy. If people can present either of these things, I'm happy to change my mind and go along with keeping it where it is. Until then I would suggest we discuss it rationally and maybe focus on whether Sceptre's decision is the right one for our encyclopedic content, rather than whether he made the move elegantly and non-WP:BOLDly. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC) note; I accidentally posted this under my Foundation account. I'm not speaking for the Foundation, or in the course of my work :).

• What Manning prefers can be discussed after the article is restored. It obviously isn't as "clear" to others as it is to you and to Sceptre. In any event, no terrible harm will come to the article for Manning to be referred to as "he" while the issue is resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This move is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and should be reverted immediately. And where is the source for assertions that 'Manning wishes to be referred to as "she"'? The article cites none whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article sources the fact that she started transitioning in her teens, that she had talked to a gender counsellor (NY mag) about reconstructive surgery, that she had told her CO of the situation, that she was found to have materials referring to hormone replacement therapy, and that she did discuss her gender identity issues with Lamo a lot. You'd have to be especially blind to read the Lamo chatlogs and conclude that she identifies as male. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article provides no sources whatsoever that assert that Manning currently wishes to be referred to as "she", and likewise that Manning wishes to be known as "Breanna". You'd have to be especially stupid to take cherry-picked quotes from a private conversation as a public statement regarding Manning's identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult one; clearly the notable name here is Bradley, for which he is known. On the other hand he appears to have gender issues & may see himself as woman (this is a confused matter from what I can make out). The flip side is that his lawyers seem to be referring to Bradley as "he", and note Breanna explicitly as an "alter ego". I'd say things are far from clear and it is probably better to stick to the commonly known name, till such a time as his explicit preference is cleared up. I feel like having him at Breanna is very POV on the gender issue and probably a serious BLP violation as it stands as well. And just ot note, Sceptre, you really really should have discussed this first - and warring over the move is not a sensible solution. It significantly undermines your argument. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it back for now - pushing it suddenly to the female name (and changing the pronouns around Wikipedia) is a pretty major issue that needs to be dealt with carefully and sensitively. I have left Sceptre a note to this effect; it is unfortunate but it feels a lot like a pointy manoeuvre (score one for the gender identity crowd), it's not the first time I've seen it in action. I think this needs extremely sensitive discussion and broad agreement on how to approach the issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And doing things "carefully and sensitively" would seem to imply that such changes should be sourced. They weren't. The whole claim regarding Manning's supposed 'gender identity' is based on cherry-picking words from a single private conversation in which he is clearly under a great deal of stress, and describes himself as confused over the issue. At no point has Manning made any public statement on the question whatsoever. The move was an act of POV-pushing soapboxing, and utterly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, reliable sources say he is self-identified as "gay" which is not congruent with identifying as transsexual. Where clearly conflicting material on self-identification is around, it is not up to Wikipedia to choose the most contentious self-identification. Collect (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources say that she lived as a gay man in about 2005; it's not uncommon for trans people, before they identify as trans, to identify as homosexual. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would add that these issues are quite complex. Whether it's common or uncommon, I've never seen statistics, but what Sceptre says certainly happens. In any event, it's somewhat of an irrelevant detour. At this point, the burden is on Sceptre to obtain consensus for any gender change to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That has to be the most ridiculous non sequitur ever posted on this noticeboard. Or are all gay men actually trans, but unaware of it? I must rush off and unilaterally rewrite a whole load of BLPs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that sexual preference is distinct from gender identity, and that the realisation of either comes at different times. There have been trans women who have lived as gay men, later came out as trans, then became straight women. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say that the article does cite this New York story, specifically, the page which contains this:

“Bradley felt he was female,” the counselor told me. “He was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.”

This seems to me to be a pretty clear declaration of female identity. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort - though what any ethical 'counselor' is doing repeating such private conversations is another matter. And how does this article - which consistently refers to Manning as "he", and describes him as "a lonely, five-foot-two, gender-questioning soldier" - justify assertions the Manning wishes to be known at present as 'Breanna'? It doesn't. Manning privately discussing issues relating to sexual identity cannot be taken as evidence that he/she has made any decisions, or indeed that he/she isn't still "gender-questioning". The whole argument is based on a selective interpretation of cherry-picked sources - and shows a remarkable disregard for the feelings of the individual concerned. How would you like your own private conversations regarding your gender-identity being used as a platform for POV-pushing and dubious stereotyping? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're pushing the POV that she is male. We source that quote to justify the claim that "he felt female, and discussed having surgery". Information about HRT was found in his room during his arrest. And then there's the Lamo chat logs, in which she says that upon discharge she would prepare to start to transition ("im just kind of drifting now… waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged… and figure out how on earth im going to transition"; "i mean, i behave and look like a male, but its not “me” =L", "now… i spend a lot of time thinking of transitioning… im now very familiar with the process… and have a rough plan of how to get portions of it to work"). I'm uncomfortable about the way she was outed, but I'm also uncomfortable with the deliberate misgendering her when it seems pretty clear that she intended to transition upon her discharge. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It "seems pretty clear" that you are cherry-picking sources to promote an agenda. Manning has made no public statement whatsoever on the issue, and you have no right whatsoever to use a Wikipedia article on him as a platform for your POV-pushing attempts to force an identity on him that he has not himself laid claim to. Find another location for your soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, according to WP:NOR and WP:AT, we use the names that are most commonly used in reliable sources. To quote WP:AT: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Clearly Bradley is the more commonly used name. Drawing conclusions based on a leaked chat transcript that a 19-year-old Manning had with a stranger requires us to interpret a primary source in an inappropriate way (see WP:PRIMARY). Even if we have some secondary sources that say Manning considers himself/herself female (and the quoted sources seem to speak to me more of a person who has certain confusion and doubts than someone who is committed), do we have any actual evidence that Manning prefers to be identified or addressed as "Breanna"? GabrielF (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gabriel, though I have every sympathy with the position that referring to Manning as Breanna is at least worth considering. He has wanted to transition for at least a couple of years, and he lived as a woman for a few days in Boston in 2010 to see how he felt about it. But the problem we have is this: (1) he has made no public statement confirming that this is still his position; (2) his lawyer refers to him as Bradley and "he"; and (3) the lawyer told the court that Manning had created "Breanna" as a female alter-ego. I don't know what he meant by that, but it didn't sound as though he was affirming that Bradley = Breanna. So all we can do is wait to see whether Manning says anything more about it, and in the meantime follow the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a "public" declaration is needed; for example Billy Tipton was only found out to be transgender after his death. All that's needed is a reliable source that Manning identifies as female, which we do have. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that Manning is a living person, so we do need a public declaration from him or his lawyer. We know that he identified as female in 2009–2010. Since then he's been through some very traumatic experiences, and transitioning is now not on the cards for some time. So he may have changed his mind, or he may still want to do it, or he may have suspended his thoughts about it until the trial is over. He's in the unfortunate situation where his gender confusion may become part of his defence, which is yet another reason he isn't free to explore and act on his feelings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Gabriel, SlimVirgin, et al. We should follow the sources. Keep the article at Bradley Manning, though if anyone still feels strongly that it should be moved, it can't hurt to follow the proper procedure and file a request via WP:RM, just to put the matter to rest. --Elonka 04:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"We know that he identified as female in 2009–2010". Actually, we don't. 'Identifying' is a public issue, self-evidently. Manning has made no such public statements, and all the evidence presented so far indicates that he is unsure himself regarding this question. That Wikipedia 'contributors' choose to misrepresent someone's self-evident questioning of identity as a 'declaration' says a great deal about their willingness to use Wikipedia as a forum for agenda-driven hogwash, and nothing whatsoever about Manning's actual position regarding the issue. This is bigotry, plain and simple. Sceptre is engaging in 'original research' of the most blatant kind to force Manning into a category that he has expressed no public wish to be assigned to. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and we have no right whatsoever to trawl through 'evidence' to impose 'identities' on individuals that they have not publicly asserted. And BTW, I'd have hoped by now that some of those who purport to be concerned with 'LBGT issues' would actually take into account the feelings of those who would rather not have stereotypes imposed by others imposed on them, but evidently my hopes are futile. Everyone has to be 'gay' or 'straight', whether they like it or not, and has to self-identify as 'male' or 'female' whether they like it or not. Utter bullshit, based on a gross simplification of the complexities of human sexuality, and of issues of identity in general... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He lived as a woman for a few days in 2010, which included handing someone his ID when he went to get gas, and watching the guy's face as he looked at Manning (as a woman), then at the ID (which said he was a man). He contacted a counsellor about it, discussed transitioning, made inquiries about hormone therapy, told the army he was a woman, sent his superior a photograph of himself as a woman, and said of the leaks that he wouldn't mind being sent to jail for the rest of his life if only he didn't have to appear in the press as a boy. So it is clear that, in 2010, he had begun to identify as a woman, and not only to himself.

His arrest fractured that development and so he is in limbo. Maybe this is awful for him, or maybe he is glad he didn't continue along that path. The point is that we can't know until he makes it clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says that we use the last known self-identification, which is female. We don't have any more recent self-identifications... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have his lawyer, we have the Bradley Manning Support Network, which was co-founded by his friend, and we have a letter from him to the army dated March 2011 in which he identifies as Bradley E. Manning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also a discussion at the Pump on the interplay between the guideline and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin has summed up the sourcing issues here correctly. I'm a firm supporter of MOS:IDENTITY, and believe it to be a natural consequence of WP:BLP, at least for living people, but I don't believe it's spirit was ever intended to override a requirement that we have realiable sourcing for our beliefs as to what the person calls themselves--WP:V is not optional. The sources presented here so far do not convince me that we know Manning's mind on the matter. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to concede on the matter of Bradley/Breanna given Slim's argument, but I don't see any sources that say that she identified as male after identifying as female to her counsellor, CO, and Lamo. The issue of names is separate to the issue of gender. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

T.J. Parsell

Resolved

 – Unsourced material removed by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone erroneously entered the name of T.J. Parsell's daughter and that she was abandoned at age 16. This is untrue and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney family

Romney family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[9] represents a full four-generation genealogy of Mitt Romney.

There is already in the article a lengthy genealogy of "notable relations" which is substantially duplicative of this new genealogy. Two editors ("Lordmarmont" and "Hodgson's secret garden") state that they agreed on this new addition. There is incredible overlap in the interests of the two editors, and I suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for extended genealogies inthe first place, and even less for two duplicating genealogies in a single artcle. Please advise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You did the right thing in removing it. Perhaps you should remove the rest of the article. Let's see, we have a section called "Family members" with lots of "stuff", followed by a subsection called "Descendants of Miles Romney" with even more "stuff", followed by a subsection called "Kinsmen of Mitt Romney", with, yup, you got it, more "stuff". Then, we have the section you removed called "Ancestry of Mitt Romney" presented, not in prose as the preceding sections, but in a lovely colorful geneaological diagram, followed by a section called "Notable relations" (putting the word "notable" in makes it good to go) with another diagram, not quite so colorful. Can anyone spell overkill, or do we need a diagram for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironic considering the value Mormons place on geneaology. But this is WP, not Salt Lake City, and this chart is full of non-notable people that I doubt our readers will care about. It appears the objective is to trace LaFount's line? Anyway, the notable people that are present are included in Notable relations below--which actually is a valuable chart. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution in the People's Republic of China

Resolved

 – Content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The lead image on this page shows a young woman posed holding a couple hundred yuan. The caption identifies her as "Chinese prostitute holding salary." This seems like a likely violation of WP:MUG, and possibly a number of other provisions such as WP:BLPCRIME. Although the subject seems aware that she was being photographed, I would wager that she didn't know her image would be used to illustrate prostitution, or that she would be called a prostitute for all the world to behold. Homunculus (duihua) 02:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How dare you besmirch the good name of the photographer, "sleazy padawan". </sarcasm>. Anyway, yeah, this really needs to be deleted from commons. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for taking care of it. Homunculus (duihua) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Quadri de la Torre

Gabriel Quadri de la Torre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the current article is stated that Mr. Quadri de la Torre is currently a Doctoral Candidate in Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Although the sources listed are legitimate Mexican News papers , they do not state where they get their information from. I believe, the ultimate source is the The Universty of Texas at Austin, through the Office of Registrar, which provides a system to verify attendance and degrees conferred http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/degrees/verify A query for Mr. Quadri de la Torre clearly states that he attended UT from Fall 1980 to Spring 1982 and that the degree of Master of Arts, major in Economics, was awarded on December 19, 1981. The University of course does not conferred half degrees for incomplete studies and since Mr. Quadri has not been back to the University for 30 years, is utterly false that he is CURRENTLY a Candidate for any degree at the University.

There is no room for false or erroneous information in Wikipedia and only verifiable information should be posted. indydiaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indydiaz (talk • contribs)

Interesting problem. Normally we would prefer secondary sources over primary ones, especially in a BLP. But I agree that the primary source here is likely to be more definitive. Perhaps the newspapers are simply reporting what he told them (and he might be overselling, as a political candidate). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You put it more succintly thank you. I have just removed for the n-th time the doctoral claims. I can only imagine what the page in Spanish might be saying.

indydiaz

---

Found a likely BLP vandal

Resolved

 – Edits reverted. Revert further problematic edits or post at AIV for ongoing problems as appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I found some edits by this IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.55.98.249 and I could tell some of them are vandalism. For politician James M. Burd, religion as "Doric", additional description as a "professional salsa dancer." I think this is the place to report it as many of them involve biographies of living persons. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to make out what's happening with that particular edit, most (not all, but most) of that IP's other edits feel more like POV-pushing than vandalism, which could explain the unsourced (and later-reverted) replacement of a Republican politician's religion from Christian to Islam. It's a static IP on Comcast, probably a personal home, but there still might be multiple people there. Hmmm. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

David Koresh

Resolved

 – Non-living subject; issue should be heard at WP:RSN. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

David Koresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevermind, he's dead. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2012050510006926 raises concerns about a sentence in the David Koresh article.

• Sentence: "and it has been alleged that he was once gang raped by older boys when he was 8."
• Dispute: the sentence is not well verified in a reliable source
• Given source: Wilson, Colin (2000), The Devil's Party, London: Virgin Books, ISBN 1-85227-843-9
• Book reviews of the source: Contemporary Review (via HighBeam, to which you should have an account), Utopian Studies (via HighBeam as well).

The reviews are not glowing and the author has a history of writing in some pretty fringe/paranormal areas. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First thought: obviously not a BLP issue. Perhaps take it to WP:RSN? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I thought since it was a BLP article this was the place, but I'll post it there as well. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

But what I'm getting at is that it's not a BLP article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Touche. Consider this thread closed. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and reliability is an overwhelming consideration. I haven't got a HighBeam account, but between the preview and your take on the reviews, I'm pretty convinced "The Devil's Party" and its author are not reliable enough to source these claims; this is doubly true because the book consists of "twelve chapters without documentation or bibliography." If the allegations are actually noteworthy, they'll have been mentioned by more sources, and by more reliable sources. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

LaRouche movement

Now has a claim about a living person in the form of "allegations"

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson III was favored to win this election, having lost the previous election by a narrow margin amid allegations by the Stevenson campaign of vote fraud by the James R. Thompson campaign

There is no sourcing for this contentious claim about Thompson, and I rather think it falls directly under WP:BLP. WP:BLP applies, as far as I can tell, here - and I would note the "allegations" are not present in the Thompson BLP at all -- thus I find this an egregious violation of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it falls under WP:BLP or not, if it is unsourced, delete it. One shouldn't need to resort to 'citation needed' tags for such partisan unsourced claims... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do let's stop bringing dead people to the BLP noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

James R. Thompson appears, at least according to our article, to still be alive... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Surprising as it may be, both Stevenson (at 81) and Thompson (75) are still alive. I'm rather concerned with who the living person is supposed to be ("the James R. Thompson campaign" might be the name of a progressive rock band, but I rather doubt it's a person). And, of course, MastCell has provided plenty of sources below. Collect, I don't quite understand why you bring up "the Thompson BLP", nor exactly what you mean by it - do you refer to our article James R. Thompson? It would be easier to follow your argument if you provide links to the articles you reference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies -- I saw a date range on the Richardson article and didn't look closely enough to see that it related to something other than his lifespan. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also sometimes worth spending a few minutes looking for sources. In this case, the vote-fraud allegations are extremely well-documented (e.g. Chicago Tribune 12-10-82, 12-04-82). The vote-fraud allegations went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which rejected Stevenson's claim (Toledo Blade 01-08-83, Chicago Tribune 01-08-83). The sourcing should have been supplied with the edit, but it exists and thus I don't see an ongoing issue here. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And the relevance to the LaRouche movement is? Looks like COATRACK 1.0 from here - and if it has nothing to do with the LaRouche movement, it does not belong in an article on the LaRouche movement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whom you're yelling at, or why. No one here argued one way or the other about relevance. You came here complaining that there was "no sourcing for this contentious claim about Thompson". And you were absolutely correct; it should have been properly sourced at the time the edit was made. Now we know that appropriate sources do exist. I understand that you now object that the subject is irrelevant regardless of sourcing, but that's a new complaint, so it might be worth giving people a chance to respond to it without yelling at them first. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Yauch

Adam Yauch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This founder member of the Beastie Boys died the other day but I would still argue he deserves BLP protection as per WP:BDP. Yauch was from a Jewish background but was not a practising Jew, which seems to place him firmly in Category:American people of Jewish descentMrather than Category:American Jews. We have WP:BLPCAT for a reason. --John (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

YES - WP:BLPCAT is clear - its undue to add him the the American Jew cat without his clear statement of practice / identification - He sits quite correctly in the Category:American people of Jewish descent. Youreallycan 21:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The key consideration as far as BLP is concerned is whether the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. Can you tell us what those implications are? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Asserting a position to a recently deceased person - (or a longer dead person for that matter imo ) that they themselves have denied is a violation of WP:NPOV as a minimum - Youreallycan 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is determined by third-party sources, not by how the first-party chooses to view themselves. BLPCAT provides an exception to NPOV. (In fact, it might be the only exception to NPOV there is, not sure.) In any case, can you explain what the implications for their living relatives and friends are? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources quality sources don't report him to be a practicing Jew and neither did he. - Youreallycan

Where in Category:American Jews does it say that it's only for practicing Jews? I looked but I didn't see it. Can you direct me to where it says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This person had historic relatives that were Jewish - some of those relatives practiced the Judaism faith - this person did not - there are two options of category to put him in - Category:American people of Jewish descent or Category:American Jews - its clear to me from a NPOV position which one he belongs in - Youreallycan 22:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be, but the BLP excemption only applies if the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. If there are none, then this is not a BLP issue, but an ordinary content dispute. I suggest that discussion resume on the article talk page or take it to the WP:NPOV/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC

Any location you choose he is still not a practising Jew and Category:American people of Jewish descent rather than Category:American Jews is the cat he belongs in is clear from a NPOV position = Youreallycan 22:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What does being a practising Jew have to do with this discussion? [[Category:American Jews]] says that the main article for this category is American Jews. The first sentence of American Jews is "American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[4] are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish ethnicity." (emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't use Wikipedia as a source on a contentious BLP issue though. What you are proposing sounds like the one drop rule or even the yellow badge. No thanks. --John (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're reading the policy too selectively. The next sentence is "Contentious or questionable material that affects living persons or recently deceased persons should be removed promptly" and that is what I go with. --John (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand. Are you saying that he's not of Jewish descent? Your original post said that he was, so how is this contentious? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We know that Adam Yauch was Jewish because reliable sources tell us that he was Jewish. We are not making the determination as to whether Yauch was Jewish or not, but rather it is Reliable sources that are making that determination for us. They show us that Yauch was Jewish:

"They were three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn (and Manhattan)—to be sure, nothing really prevented their demographic from making hip-hop music, but they showed that you could be taken seriously as a rapper no matter what you looked like."[10]

"The encounter was at the Sundance Film Festival in January, 2006. Yauch, a.k.a. MCA, and his Beastie Boys brethren Mike “Mike D” Diamond and Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz had already redefined the notion of a hip-hop act — three white Jewish guys from Brooklyn! — and they’d been early innovators of music videos, boutique indie labels and the Internet. They were about to explode the conventions of concert films."[11]

"Beastie Boys’ Adam Yauch, Jewish legend and hip-hop pioneer, has died."[12] Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bus Stop. The Beastie Boys have been identified as a Jewish hip-hop banned, a trio of "Jews" - Youch's mother is Jewish which according to Jewish law makes him Jewish. This whole BLPcat seems too ambiguous as far as Jewish status is concerned - one can be Jewish and not practice the religion or be part of a totally different one. Unless Yauch converted out of Judaism to another religion and self-identified as a non-Jew, then John's arguments hold up. But if this actually becomes precedents there are hundreds, if not thousands of BLP Jewish [insert country here] articles that would be subject to review. Does anyone question Karl Marx's status as Jew? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And the following: "All three Beastie Boys—Mike D (born Michael Diamond) MCA (born Adam Yuach), and Ad-Rock (born Adam Horovitz)—are Jews, raised in middle-class families of New York City"[13] Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—please post a response if you wish to take issue with a post that I have made. I am asking you again not to alter my posts as you've done here and here. You are certainly at liberty to explain in your own words the shortcomings as you see it of something I've posted. But it is not necessary for you to go into my post and alter its appearance. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with exposing opinionated externals and why you would edit war to keep them hidden is the real question Youreallycan 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is we have two people who are convinced Category:American people of Jewish descent and Category:American Jews are not redundant when they clearly are. I agree that this is nothing more than a content dispute wherein two people are trying to force their preferred version with a bit of process wonkery. You've brought it to the BLP noticeboard and been told BLPCAT doesn't apply because none of his living relatives are hurt by us referring to him as a Jew (which he is!). A Jew is a Jew, there's no special distinction to be made between a religious Jew and a secular Jew. I added like 5 different reliable sources to the article that refer to him as Jewish. And this reference to "yellow stars" is offensive... if anything the attempt to deny this deceased man his heritage is highly questionable. Night Ranger (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting extreme - we don't categorise people according to one interpretation of Jewish law when that person showed no affiliation with that sect/group/interpretation - Nobody is denying anybody anything in regards to his heritage, the dispute is about the minor weight issue of adding someone who was a American with a Catholic Father and a Jewish Mother and brought up in a non-religious upbringing to the Category:American people of Jewish descent rather than Category:American Jews.Youreallycan 00:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero difference between the two. Since this is clearly a content dispute I initiated an RFC at Yauch's talk page. Night Ranger (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Youreally case is confused on what it means to be Jewish when he/she drew analogy between Catholicism and Judaism. One is not ethnically Catholic, it is a exclusively a religion - much like Christianity. On the other hand, one can be born Jewish and not be part of the religion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

True enough. On the other hand, one can be 'of Jewish descent' without being 'ethnically Jewish'. I have some Irish ancestors, but that doesn't make me ethnically Irish. Or if it does, I'm also ethnically English, Scottish, and not-quite-sure-possibly-French-or-Belgian too - and that is just the 'descent' I'm aware of. Ethnicity is about self-identification. Anything else isn't 'ethnicity' - ask an anthropologist to explain why, if you are too dense to figure it out for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan has a long history of being "confused" about what it means to be Jewish and can safely be ignored on the topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Its demeaning and a form of bully behaviour to repeatedly comment about person to assert a person can be ignored and that they are confused. Diff of specific reference to me in a personal demeaning manner - recorded for my report about your following demeaning pattern in regards to me and your repeated focus on me after multiple requests for a voluntary interaction ban. - Youreallycan 13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—Judaism makes no distinction between whether someone is observant or not. A nonobservant Jew is just as Jewish as an observant Jew. Yet you are stressing in posts above that Yuach was not "practicing". It is of no consequence. It does not matter. Reliable sources are keenly aware of this. We should be following the guidance of reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Several points. You say 'reliable sources' are keenly aware of the way a person of Jewish ancestry should be viewed by other Jews and by society. I don't think something that is a reliable source for music news would necessarily be a reliable source for matters of Jewish heritage. WP:RS says that context makes a difference as to whether something is reliable for a purpose or not. Find reliable sources on Jewish ancestry, and find primary sources or interviews with Adam Yaunch discussing his Jewish ancestry. Also, WP:BLP directly applies to Adam Yaunch since he is 'recently' deceased. WP:BDP *also* applies. One thing for certain, if his mother is Jewish he at least fits into "Category:American people of Jewish descent", so without any contention, you can have that. As far as the other... who cares? Adam Yaunch never cared to self-identify closely with Jewish ethnicity than we can tell publicly, so why make this into a big fight? Isn't "Category:American people of Jewish descent" enough? We should be fighting for our right to party, not for his right to be included in Category:American Jews. -- Avanu (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: WP:BDP applies if the material has implications for their living relatives and friends. Can you tell us what the implications are for his living relatives and friends? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First, who knows? Second, read the policy more carefully and you will see that it doesn't matter quite yet. Recent deaths are treated much closer to the way living people are. -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu—I don't think that quite addresses the question. Policy language refers to material that "has implications for their living relatives and friends". Nonexistent implications aren't our concern. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying you are not reading the full policy. BDP is a part of BLP. Heck, I don't even know how someone accidentally putting Yaunch in either of these categories has contentious implications for anyone, Yaunch himself included. The two categories are only slightly different and I doubt from his attitude on this stuff that he would even have cared. He obviously fits in the 'jewish descent' one at least. The overall point I am making is that BLP *does* apply to Adam Yaunch and not just because he has living relatives or friends, but because he just died. But I don't know why any of this matters much. I think the whole discussion is about 150 sentences too long. -- Avanu (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are saying that BLP applies, but you don't see a bona fide BLP violation? Is that correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies to anything related to a person. (yeah, I don't see anything at all contentious except this silly debate) Add one category or add both or don't add any. Who the hell cares? No one except nitpicky people. More than enough points have been brought out that you can have it any way you like, so just the add the tags and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one person on both sides of this argument, and it's not about minutia or process abuse. Matters of heritage and religion are important and deserve careful consideration, especially in an encyclopedia claiming NPOV. My arguments are here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Matters of heritage and religion are important, but there is nothing in the record that seems to imply that Mr. Yaunch would have cared about this 'label'. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues in Venezuela/Chavez opposition candidates in election articles

See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Manuel Rosales for another issue involving an opposition presidential candidate in a previous Venezuelan election.

This is the edit in question, regarding Henrique Capriles Radonski who is the opposition candidate running against incumbent Hugo Chávez in the Venezuelan presidential election, 2012.

The current text can be seen here.

This is what the following sources say:

1. Vyas, Kejal and Jose de Cordoba (15 February 2012). "Chávez Rival Hit by State Attacks". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 February 2012.

   In another broadside, a popular late-night program on state television called "The Razor," which every night vilifies Chávez opponents, alleged that Mr. Capriles was caught having sex with a man in a car. The host of the show, Mario Silva, claimed to be reading a police report from 2000 Press.

2. Devereux, Charlie (20 February 2012). "Chavez media say rival Capriles backs plots ranging from Nazis to Zionists". Bloomberg. Retrieved 21 February 2012.

   While the attacks on the 39-year-old governor of Miranda state have increased in intensity since the primary, they began even before it. On Feb. 10, Mario Silva, host of a late-night debate program aired on state-owned Venezolana de Television, or VTV, accused Capriles of being caught by police performing oral sex in a car with another man in 2000. Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident. The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident. Capriles on Feb. 15 denied the allegations and said the police report, which has circulated via e-mail in Venezuela, was false. When asked whether a police report existed, and if so whether it could be released, the Baruta Police declined to comment.

3. Toothaker, Christopher (17 February 2012). "Henrique Capriles Radonski: Hugo Chavez Foe A Target Of Anti-Semitism". Huffington Post. Retrieved 21 February 2012.

   Mario Silva, a staunch Chavez ally who hosts a late-night talk show on state television called "La Hojilla," or "The Razor Blade," recently suggested that Capriles is gay. Citing an alleged police report, Silva said police officers spotted Capriles engaged in a sexual act with another man. Capriles denied the accusation.

That summarizes what sources that meet WP:BLP sourcing requirements generally say. The following two partisan, pro-Chavez sources are used to expand the text:

1. Venezuelanalysis.com, discussed multiple times at the Reliable sources noticeboard, deemed a reliable source for statements about Chavez policies, but not apt for highly contentious BLP statements because it is a pro-Chavez (controlled and previously funded) website.

   "Capriles, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and Systemic Violence: Understanding the Venezuelan Elections". Venezuelanalysis.com. 5 April 2012. Retrieved 7 May 2012.

   Text added to the article based on that source, and not present in other sources is:

   • ... and according to the policeman, used this position ... to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". The policeman also said he had received a "barrage of threats" and wanted to clear his name.

2. A website called Bloque Socialista Digital, Guerilla Comunicacional. The source appears to be an editorial and provides no indication that it meets reliability on its About Us page.

   "Acta Policial del año 2000 refleja que Capriles fué detenido por acto inmoral en un vehículo". Bloque Socialista Digital, Guerrilla comunicacional. 29 April 2012. Retrieved 7 May 2012.

   Text added to the article based on that source, and not present in other sources is:

   • ... allegations by a Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta that on 8 May 2000 …

Neither Venezuelanalysis.com nor a website with no indication of reliability should be used to add to such derogatory claims, already covered by high quality sources. Both the election article and the Capriles Radonski article could benefit from more eyes until the December election; the articles currently give undue attention to these claims, and expound upon them using dubious sources. I am concerned that as a former admin and long-standing editor, Rd232 should know what quality of sources are needed for these kinds of derogatory claims, yet this is a repeat issue on candidates opposing Chavez in elections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3 and 4. And now, we have deragotory text about a living person (and candidate) sourced only and exclusively to state-run and controlled Radio Nacional de Venezuela (it is unlawful in Venezuela for media to criticize the President, but state-run programs can criticize opposing candidates), and the addition also of primicias24.com, for which I can find no indication of reliability or editorial oversight. In sum, we have now a claim of a coverup that is 12 years old and mysteriously did not surface in the three months before Capriles was elected Mayor along with allegations of threats to silence a policeman coming from nothing but pro-Chavez or non-reliable sources, not suited for such deragotory BLP claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, what are your personal views about this Chavez guy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This question is entirely out of line. Our personal views of Chavez, pro- or con- have no bearing on the problems with this article. We have serious BLP violations here that must be dealt with.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So what all this Oo oo oo BLP VIOLATION (cf User_talk:SandyGeorgia#On_the_dick-sucking_BLP_Baruta_police_issue) amounts to is that allegations of someone using their position to cover up indecency charges are given marginally more detail from a source Sandy disapproves of. Bloomberg (as Sandy quotes above) said "Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident. The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident." That's the key point already there, and explaining further the allegations (the allegations all stem from the policeman who claims to be the author of that police report cited by Silva) doesn't create a BLP vio. Indeed, it's necessary to avoid a BLP vio by implying that Silva may have made the whole thing up. Regardless of its authenticity, the document's claims are down to the policeman who authored it, not to Silva. Also, I made a mistake on one of the sources - I had both primicias24.com ([14]) and blosodi.com.ve's mirror of that article open, and must have copied the wrong URL. I've corrected that and added another source [15] and provided a direct quote from the author of the document. Rd232 ^talk 09:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "see also" Sandy throws in gratuitously: "see also" this series of edits of 8 June 2010 which she contributed to on the disputed topic in question. The result is still in the article today, and no substantive changes have been made since she edited that topic. PS It hasn't escaped me that Sandy manages to imply that the alleged BLP vio was an issue while Rosales was a candidate. It wasn't, and couldn't have been, since the topic only came into the news three years after the election Rosales lost. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The new cite you've added (RNV) is another Chavez-controlled, state-run source, which again contains allegations not covered in the kind of third-party, independent, high quality sources we expect for BLPs and such damaging claims. Every independent reliable third-party source puts the event in the context of the state-sanctioned attacks from state-run media on an opposition candidate, while the text now has been expanded to imply, indeed explicitly state, that there was a coverup even including threats-- all coming from partisan or government-controlled sources, given undue weight, downplaying the account as given in reliable sources wrt the state role in the attacks, and conveying the strong views expressed by Rd232 on my talk page of his belief that what circulates in private email should be given weight and is a valid account of some coverup allegations surfacing 12 years later. There is not only an issue of using government-controlled sources to attack on opposition candidate and claim a coverup including threats that are not mentioned in the quality of sources required for a BLP: there is undue weight given to these biased accounts to the exclusion of the issue of the state role in the attacks on opposition candidates as covered by every independent source (there are more than the three I listed above).

And, on the Rosales article, as well as numerous others in the suite of Venezuela articles, I'm so sorry that there aren't enough hours in a day for one volunteer editor to clean up all of them. There is not a candidate who has opposed Chavez in any election where we don't have similar allegations from biased sources given undue weight in our articles, the persecution of opposition candidates has been the topic of numerous reports from Human Rights oganizations, and keeping up with every one of these articles would be a full-time job. (The controversy over paid editing comes to mind.) Rd232, did you forget to mention the timing of Rosales being forced into exile? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything is explicitly attributed to the source of the allegations, namely the policeman, not stated as fact - and since the issue is unconfirmed allegations, the local sources you object to are certainly good enough to document those allegations in marginally more detail than the foreign sources you prefer. As for Rosales: you heavily edited that topic on 8 June 2010, so stop pretending it's an ongoing problem you just haven't got round to fixing. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you may have a BLP vio on your user talk page: the allegations I've seen are only "oral sex", and don't say who was doing what. Rd232 ^talk 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"the strong views expressed by Rd232 on my talk page of his belief that what circulates in private email should be given weight and is a valid account of some coverup allegations surfacing 12 years later." - where did I say that? Quotes please. I believe in fact I wanted you to properly rely on the Bloomberg source, which says there was a document (the authenticity of which is disputed), and you said there wasn't. Rd232 ^talk 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it appears that the board is active yet no one wants to touch this after well over a full day, I have per BLP policy removed the text sourced only to state-controlled or non-reliable sources. We have third-party independent reliable accounts in English, and considering that multiple human rights organizations have detailed the problems with freedom of the press in Venezuela (criticism of the President is disallowed by law, but state-run media can be used to make allegations about opposing candidates), BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates for such claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates" - where does it say "not associated with candidates"? And who gets to decide who is "associated"? You, Sandy? And are you going to say El Universal is neutral, so it's OK to use it - or will you remove that from the article too? ... But it's a convenient position you've invented there, knowing that whatever nonsense the Venezuelan opposition comes up with is immediately piped into Western media, whilst anyone else in Venezuela struggles to get their voice heard there. Rd232 ^talk 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, that's a classic example of Original Research. You don't get to decide, i don't get to decide, we follow reliable sources. You having an opinion that Venezuela "struggles to get their voice heard" while the opposition is "immediately piped in" is your opinion, and useless and counterproductive in an editing discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, Original Research is material in an article; in a discussion, it's just my opinion. Just as Sandy has her opinion on the ability of Venezuelan press to say what they want, I have my opinion on what the Western media says (and actually it can be backed up half-decent sources to some extent, but I can't be bothered right now, especially as Sandy would just dispute the reliability of those sources). Sandy's opinion is used as partial justification for excluding state media sources, on the logic that opposition media aren't allowed to respond, so therefore what the state media says can't be included either - care to comment on that? And my question directed at Sandy was actually very specific: she wants to exclude any national or international media that support Chavez as "too associated with a candidate", whilst being fine with opposition-supporting El Universal. Basically, Sandy is happy to use any policy or non-policy argument she can lay her hands on to exclude the point of view of anyone who doesn't support the Venezuelan opposition (national media), or depend on them for their view of Venezuelan issues (international media). Are you going to do the same because you (apparently) share her politics, or actually stand up for basic Wikipedia principles? Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

she wants to exclude any national or international media that support Chavez as "too associated with a candidate", ... ahem. Bring forward any source that meets our basic reliability standards of editorial oversight, etc, and that is not controlled by Chavez and let's discuss it. So far, you haven't. In the interim, please don't make false statements about me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You said not far above "BLP requires us to use independent reliable sources, not associated with candidates". And then decline to explain why the opposition-supporting El Universal doesn't fall foul of that position. And you refuse to accept independent websites like Venezuelanalysis.com even when their statements are explicitly attributed, because they broadly support the Bolivarian Revolution. Rd232 ^talk 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring that you've introduced Socialist blogs and other sources that give no indication of reliability on their "About us" page, I've answered your other queries multiple times. El Universal cannot (by Venezuelan law) criticize the president, and certainly not in the way Silva has Capriles on state-controlled media, so that's a straw man. Venezuelanalysis.com can support the Bolivarian Revolution all they want and they are a reliable source when speaking to the policies of that revolution (yet strangely, you accept their opinion as fact on articles, while rejecting "western media" fact as opinion); the issue is their clear and direct ties not to the "Revolution", but to the "candidate" (Chavez), making it unsuitable for BLPs, particularly about the opposing candidate. Reliability of sources depends on context, and in the context of damaging material in a BLP, they have a clear bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

the socialist blog was a mistake (it was a mirror of an article from somewhere else, and I copied the wrong URL). I'm sure you're never going to forget that mistake, because allows you to believe and claim that I read that blog (I'd never heard of it before). There is no evidence of Venezuelanalysis being tied to Chavez rather than the revolutionary movement more broadly. As for El Universal - are you really saying that based on your unsourced opinion, El Universal is a reliable source despite its support for the opposition because Venezuelan law prevents it being unreliable?? Rd232 ^talk 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, no ... I acknowledge the Socialist blog was a mistake, albeit ironic that a blog spreading those claims can be mixed up with a state source, which doesn't speak well for the state source, but that's an aside. After you removed the mistaken socialist blog, you still used a source that didn't have any indication of reliability. Are you familiar with how to look for an "About us" or "Contact us" or some similar page on a website to evaluate what kind of editorial oversight, staff, fact checking etc they have to evaluate for reliability?

You do not find a link in that Chavez granted a plum General Consul spot in New York (I assume you're familiar with how those spots are allocated, in Venezuela and in many countries?) to the wife of one of the founders and editors of Venezuelanalysis.com, that many sources describe it as pro-Chavez, that one source describes the editor as a prominent Chavista, or that one of the founders himself describes the website as "mostly pro-Chavez"? With that kind of close ties to Chavez, it is not suitable for deragotory BLP claims about opposing candidates, although it is well positioned to document the policies and programs of the Bolivarian Revolution.

On your question about El Universal, on other topics, I have many times observed that you have a good command of logic; please use it, as the length of this section is becoming tedious. I am saying, and repeating myself, it is moot and has not had to be tested: El Universal cannot make and does not make deragotory BLP claims or it can be shut down by Chavez. If you have an instance where we have used El Universal for a controversial BLP claim by all means bring it forward so we can discuss whether it was used appropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man: El Universal is prohibited by law from doing/saying the same things that state-controlled media does in Venezuela routinely (with a state-controlled judiciary complicating matters), so what El Universal may or may not say is not a relevant comparison-- it won't be a BLP issue under the current press double standards in Venezuela. It's hard to come up with an equivalent scenario that folks might understand: let's suppose the US had no independent judiciary, power consolidated in the Executive, and the State Department of the US issued a press release saying Mitt Romney had engaged in oral sex in a car, and the Executive also controlled the media, so he could allege that on state-run television, but we had laws in the US that prohibited Romney from criticizing the State Department for saying that? Yes, I know, it's outlandish-- that's the situation in Venezuela. All Capriles can do is deny the charges, and Venezuelan media can't go very far with it or they risk being shut down per the Law of Social Responsibility passed under Chavez control of congress. The freedom of the press issue, and the control of the judiciary, in Venezuela has been discussed by numerous human rights and independent reliable sources. Reliable sources, not "me", get to decide. Should Wikipedia decide that sources controlled by and associated with a candidate can be used to villify an opposing candidate contrary to our WP:BLP policy, in a country where there are restrictions on freedom of the press, that precedent leaves Wikipedia with a big issue on its hands. It's most curious that no one will weigh in here when the board is quite active. We have independent reliable sources, not affiliated with the campaign, and we have sources in English, and we have independent journalists who know the laws in Venezuela; it is irresponsible for us to use sources associated with and controlled by a candidate to allege anything beyond what is already covered, when it's covered pretty well already (or as well as it can be covered when one considers that politicins criticizing Chavez are subject to exile or prison-- there is nothing Capriles can do except deny it, and until/unless more independent sources report more, I believe we've given the issue its due weight in the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You have put it very nicely Georgia. Discussion of what Chavez-controlled sources have alleged should be limited to what actual reliable sources have said about the allegations. I say treat them the same as we would supermarket tabloids in the US. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's compatible with WP:NPOV how? (And on this specific issue can we please remember that the allegations are not FROM state-run media but REPORTED BY them. Part of the NPOV problem is failing to make this clear, and pretending the allegations are invented by a Chavez-supporting TV host - which for some reason isn't a WP:BLP problem because BLP doesn't apply to Chavez supporters I suppose...) Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's compatible with NPOV because state-run media in a country without a free press is not a reliable source....Allegations do not suddenly become significant because they passed through an independent source if that source still isn't a reliable one. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"state-run media in a country without a free press is not a reliable source" - is (i) not logical and has no foundation in policy and (ii) not the case for Venezuela. Maybe it's not as free as it could be, but it's plenty free enough; we're not talking about North Korea here. As for the specific issue: the allegations have already been judged significant enough to be picked up by international media. So that bridge has already been crossed; the question is whether the allegations are going to be reported less accurately (creating a BLP violation by giving the impression a TV host invented them) or more accurately (by clarifying the source of the allegations is a policeman). Rd232 ^talk 00:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's not as free as it could be, but it's plenty free enough; we're not talking about North Korea here. Well, you can google press freedom in Venezuela and find the hundreds to thousands of sources discussing the lack of freedom of expression in Venezuela as well as I can, but for one example NPR has Venezuela on par with Iran, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and Vietnam. You can find human rights reports, news reports, journalist organizations, of the serious issues ad nauseuam. Now Rd232 will post something from Venezuelanalysis.com painting a different picture from the point of view of the Bolivarian Revolution, but regardless ... for the purposes of BLP, where we must use high quality sources, state-run and controlled media in Venezuela can say whatever it wants, but opposing candidates cannot criticize Chavez or they can be jailed and media outlets shut down. Google press freedom Venezuela-- there are recent reports from Human Rights Watch, Committee to Protect Journalists, Amnestry International, New York Times, The Economist, The Huffington Post and it goes on and on ... take your pick. We can't use state-controlled and affiliated sources from Venezuela to further damaging BLP claims. We can use them to state what Chavez's policies are and what his revolution is about because they speak for him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

All newspapers are created free; but some are more free than others. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved text

Moved text from a separate thread created on this same page to consolidate two discussions unnecessarily forked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where or how often I ask the question, you still won't or can't answer it: how is

According to state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), the allegations Silva was referring to were made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta referring to a May 2000 incident. Capriles was elected Mayor of Baruta several months after the alleged incident in the 30 July 2000 regional elections, and according to RNV, the policeman says Capriles used his position to avoid indecency charges and to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". RNV says the policeman said he had received a "barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions" and wanted to clear his name.

a BLP violation, especially bearing in mind the current paragraph two at Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012#Allegations_against_Capriles, which it was supplementing before you deleted it? And again, since I keep asking and you won't answer: (i) is Mario Silva exempt from BLP considerations and (ii) why is it acceptable to make it look like Silva invented the allegations, rather than merely repeating the allegations from another source? Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself again, since it is demanded.

On Mario Silva. I do not know where you are getting the notion that there is a BLP issue with Mario Silva. Where have we deviated in the article from what high quality sources say? We have at least half a dozen in the article but there are scores more high quality sources discussing the incident, and they all say basically the same thing. They say he repeated allegations, he pruported to read a report, he claimed he had a report, etc. We say the same thing. We do not have a BLP issue when we repeat what dozens of high quality reliable sources say. We are reporting a breadth of high quality sources, and sources from the right, left and middle-- they all say similar. We do not "make it look like" anything: that is original research. We repeat what sources say.

On your concern that we are somehow damaging him with a BLP issue, that is a noble thought, but it indicates to me that it is likely that you have never watched his show, do not know his market, or have not seen this specific episode of his show. If you had, I believe you might temper your opinions of the "Western media" since they were very generous, conservative, and judicious in what they reported about what he did. He did not just "read from a report" or "repeat allegations". There is no chance his reputation is damaged based on what little we say and the sources say, since he went way over the top and well beyond just "reading a report". I don't think he's in danger of losing his state job based on the command performance he gave or the type of captive audience he plays to. [16] That's just my opinion, irrelevant since we stick to sources, but I hope it assuages your concern about his reputation. Nowhere do we say he invented the allegations; you can watch the episode to decide if the media reports are fair, but regardless, we are within policy.

On the specific text, I've answered before, will again. First, you are still using primicias24.com as a source. I may have missed it, but I can find nothing on that site to indicate reliablity by the usual measures (fact checking, editorial oversight, journalistic credentials, etc.). Please have a look at WP:RS and based on text there, point me to something at primicias24.com that indicates reliability. You use that source, a state source (Radio Nacional de Venezuela) and a Chavez-affiliated website (Venezuelanalysis.com) for this text that is not in any high quality source:

... made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta ... mi vida profesional en el cuerpo policial sufrió una andanada calumnias que se elevaron a acciones disciplinarias con la apertura de un procedimiento por parte del entonces Alcalde a mi persona (that is very damaging, and just because it's in Spanish and in a footnote doesn't make it any less so) and he had received a "barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions".

We don't know the facts of who the Baruta policeman was, if any, because we don't have it from a non-partisan source, and all of that threat business is a direct BLP vio against Capriles, detail not given in nonpartisan, high quality sources. Everything else in that paragraph is already in the article. You are adding damaging text from partisan sources that is not included in any of the higher quality sources-- it's likely those journalists watched the show :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"We don't know the facts of who the Baruta policeman was" - we don't need to "know" the facts, we just need to cite all relevant sources as necessary to comply with WP:NPOV. Either we cover both sides of the issue, or we don't cover the issue at all. Rd232 ^talk 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When we're talking about BLP issues, we report facts from high quality sources. We do not yet have that from a high quality source (you have now found something from Pink News-- I have never encountered that source and don't know if it rises to the level required for a BLP). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that RNV reported bla, a key aspect of the story (the original source of the allegations). We don't need the combined might of the Western media to deign to cover the issue properly in order to say that RNV reported bla, when it's an essential part of the story we're already covering. You're using BLP to try and bypass NPOV, ignoring the fact (as pointed out below) that omitting the essential part of the story from sources you deem unmentionable creates a BLP violation. Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mario Silva BLP violation

Here is the text you've crafted:

The week before the MUD primary elections, Mario Silva repeated on his political satire program La Hojilla (English: The Razorblade) allegations that Capriles had been caught in a sexual act with a man in a car. According to Bloomberg,

The only support presented for the allegations was a piece of paper that Silva waved in front of the cameras and said was a police report on the incident. ... Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident.

Silva's program airs on the state-run television station Venezolana de Televisión; it was described by the WSJ as a show "which every night vilifies Chávez opponents" and Silva was described by The Huffington Post as a "staunch Chávez ally". Reuters described Silva as a "diehard Chavista" who "showed a cartoon of Capriles wearing pink shorts and a swastika on his arm" in another episode. The WSJ said Silva "claimed to be reading a police report from 2000 Press"; Capriles said the report was false; the local police refused to comment.

This is a BLP violation because it strongly gives the impression that Silva invented the allegations himself, and waved a piece of paper in support of them. The refusal to include the information that allegations come from another source makes Silva out to be a manipulative liar. Since this is clearly a BLP violation, I've removed the content pending discussion about how to fix it. Rd232 ^talk 07:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, here is the text *I* crafted, before dubious sources were added (brief, simple) and overquoting was used to avoid charges of misrepresentation. Allrighty then. Half a dozen high quality reliable sources, reported practically verbatim with quotes, and now excised entirely from the article. Interesting! As is "Silva was attacked by The Economist". I see you are familiar with the personaje and his show. Curious to use blog posts in an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was that previous version you did, which included your editorial claim contradicted by your source that "no proof was presented", which amounts to an attempt to argue just as strongly as in the newer version I quoted above that the allegations come from Silva, and were made up by him. As for the La Hojilla article - I was showing international coverage prior to the recent incident, i.e. showing notability. PS when I say "contradicted", don't misunderstand me again: the issue is that you're claiming the content of Silva's piece of paper is unknown, whilst your source said it was not (and indeed the RNV sources you object to provide the actual document in question). Rd232 ^talk 09:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be establishing notability on an article by sourcing an anonymous blog post. I'm sure you wouldn't let me get away with same :) YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's The Economist. I assumed you would approve! Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

David James (photographer)

This article was recently created by Napsync, an apparently well-intentioned (or at least enthusiastic) high-school student as described on his userpage:

"I was using my facebook account & then I saw a M:I:4 post, In their post they've mentioned about their photographer David James & on that moment I decided to write a article about this subject. The search began about David & I found a whole completely written article on IMDB. Hurray !!!!!!!!"

The main text of the article seems to be copy-pasted directly from IMDB, and the various external links connect to at least 2 different people named David James who are, in fact, photographers, but are by no means the same person as the Hollywood still photographer that the article intends to describe. I know that IMDB is discouraged as a reliable source, but I have no real idea as to how to proceed with cleaning up what seems to be a hastily generated mess. Should the entire article be deleted? I would certainly appreciate it if someone with more specific knowledge of Wikipedia policy than I could assist, as I would hate to be any of the David Jameses who happened upon this article, and I am reluctant to dive right in and start deleting things without a full understanding or familiarity with exactly which policies apply to the various issues that need to be addressed. Thank you, Blake Burba (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have a serious IMDB-to-BLP copy-paste problem. I went ahead and removed the blatant WP:COPYVIO ripped off from IMDB. I removed other cites to IMDB; it's generally inadequate to base BLP content. I left what wasn't clearly problematic. It's up to you or anyone else to go through WP:BEFORE; WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE seem applicable. JFHJr (㊟) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Blake Burba (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Stella

Resolved

 – There is no BLP issue. JFHJr (㊟) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Stella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I would like to report a problem on Frank Stella's page.On Frank Stella's page in the basic information it says that Frank Stella was born on May 12, 1936 (age 75). Someone needs to change that, because he wasn't born at 75 YEARS OF AGE!

Thank you for taking the time to need my comment and I would really appreciate it if you fixed it!

From, FullofKnowledge77 FullofKnowledge77 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the age he is now, not the age he was when he was born. So it is correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Clare Short

Resolved

 – RS found --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is the recent introduction of material attributing a quote to Clare Short in her article page:-

• that Israel "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming"

The three citations offered are

1. An opinion piece published on the WSJ website [17]
2. An opinion piece published on the daily telegraph (Australia) website [18]
3. Anthony Julius (2010) Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (Oxford University Press) [19]

I deleted the material when it was added with the first ref on the basis that an opinion piece is not suitable for verification of facts in a BLP. And again when it was re-added with the second ref for the same reason. It has now been re-added with the third ref, which would be a suitable reference, but the book can be viewed on google books and the quote is not in the book [20]. Clare Short appears in the book three times [21], but there is no sign of the quote.

I do not know if she said the quote or not, but it is my understanding of policy that it should be removed until we have appropriate references.

I don't want to risk violating 3rr and I would also like someone else to have a look at it to make sure I haven't missed something obvious. Cheers. Dlv999 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You mis-spelled "Clare", but at any rate, the quote appears in Julius' book without her first name, in the footnotes here. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Lampanelli

Lisa Lampanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:173.0.254.229 has greatly expanded a section highly critical of insult comic Lisa Lampanelli's appearance on Celebrity Apprentice 5. The edits were marked "Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism", so I removed them per WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:BLP, stripping out all the negative and unencyclopedic materials sourced to gossip blogs. [22] These changes have been reverted twice. [23][24] This editor has been warned by others for adding negative unencyclopedic materials to BLPs based on gossip blogs, frequently depicting the subject as racially insensitive. As an example, the editor added a "criticism" section to the Joan Cusack article three times: [25][26][27] While some of the info about Lampanelli may be OK on the article about the show, this much detail is way out of proportion in a summary of her career and should not be in a BLP unless it is sourced to very high-quality sources. I'm requesting uninvolved editors take a look. Jokestress (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the disputed desired addition as I agree with most of your comments here and asked the user to seek consensus prior to replacement - Here's what the user is desirous of adding - The_Celebrity_Apprentice_5 - it appears undue coverage of trivial titillating issues in her biography to me - as was said above - perhaps some of it could be ok in the article about the show. This is what it imo correctly looks like , covering the notable points after the desired addition is removed - Lisa_Lampanelli#The_Celebrity_Apprentice_5 - Youreallycan 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User: Youreallycan, you came to my talkpage, stating that Jokestress is right and reverted the article back to her edit, but you didn't even sign your name on your comments, as shown here [28] so I was really confused for a long time.

But anyways, in regards to the editing dispute, Jokestress came out of nowhere a few days ago and made the following 2 edits: [29] with the edit summary of "removing all this crap sourced to gossip blogs", and [30] with the edit summary of "more crap removed". After I revert her here [31], telling her "not to refer to the edits of others as crap" in my edit summary, it's HER that gives ME the warning on my talk page, stating the following, (as shown here [32]):

Please consider this your second warning. We can add back information to Lisa Lampanelli that is sourced to major newspapers, magazines, etc. Gossip blogs are typically not covering encyclopedic information. Things like her views on the son of a television personality's hunting habits are not encyclopedic. We can use things like People magazine and major newspapers if they covered the racial slurs etc. The rest of it is not important. 6 weeks in a 20-year career needs to be proportionally covered. That is way too much detail.

She also adds the following to the article's talk page (as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lisa_Lampanelli):

This information needs to be proportional within her two decades of performing. This section was way over-detailed criticism and written by someone who seems to have a big problem with Lampanelli's humor. It was sourced to gossip sites like TMZ and was not encyclopedic. We can discuss information from a major newspaper or magazine, but the gossip site stuff is not acceptable sourcing.

These are controversies of Lampanelli's, relating to the show that have all been heavily reported on within the media. Multiple sites have been reporting on Lisa Lampanelli's slurring of Mendoza and various feuds on the show, and three of her most notable feuds were listed and briefly explained afterwards in that section. Multiple times I've tried telling Jokestress that the TMZ sources being used to support much of the info that was covered in that section are anything but weak considering they're based on interviews TMZ did with Lisa Lampanelli HERSELF. Lisa Lampanelli does several face-to-face & call-in interviews with TMZ, so for Jokestress to remove all of the information on basis of "weakly sourced gossip sites" with the edit summary of "removal of crap" is incredibly outrageous and insulting. And I've tried to let her know my frustrations, as shown here [33], but she has now come here to get her way.

Anyways, due to Jokestress' cursory removal of so much material, the edit in question now has inaccuracies and is distorted. 173.0.254.229 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for forgetting to sign - It is also not that I said Jokestress is right - I agree with some their their points and am coming rather from a position of mediator and encouraged you here for discussion to seek independent opinions and consensus for your desired addition - Youreallycan 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

TMZ is not an acceptable source for negative info, even if she was on their show. They traffic in gossip and trivial matters and mock outrage. These sources seem OK:

• US Weekly
• Entertainment Weekly
• NY Daily News

Major newspapers, magazines, and books are fine. Gossip blogs are not acceptable for adding negative information to a biography. If you use the above info, our coverage needs to be proportional within the scope of Lampanelli's career. Her time on Celebrity Apprentice, while notable, is about 1/200th of the time she has done comedy. Our coverage should be proportional per WP:UNDUE. The additions you made were way too detailed given the summary of the rest of her work. Jokestress (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Haakon Faste

Haakon Faste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person uses this Wikipedia article, for personal gain.

Please delete this page, as there is no need of a page for someone who are not famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryderiator56 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed it for deletion, but as non-notable rather than a vanity bio.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Suchy

Chuck Suchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Wikipedia page for Chuck Suchy, a Mandan, North Dakota folk singer,someone has used one of my stories as a source without my permission. The Wiki page tells about a song that Chuck Suchy wrote about Hazel Minor,a teenager who froze to death in a snow storm.

I was a writer for the "Dakota Datebook" show for Prairie Public Radio (North Dakota public radio). And when I was employed by them (2008-2010), I wrote a story about Hazel Minor, which was broadcast across North Dakota. It is that story which is used as "source #1" on the Chuck Suchy Wikipedia page. Chuck Suchy wrote his song about Hazel Minor YEARS before I wrote my story about her.

So you see, I think the page was in error to use my story as a source. It implies that Chuck was inspired by my story, or that the story came first. And, as no one consulted me about using my story as a source, I would like it removed. thank you, Jill Whitcomb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.247.252 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of an odd situation. The page linked (your story) doesn't mention Chuck Suchy at all, and is therefore only suitable as a reference to support the fact that Hazel Minor was indeed "a 15-year-old girl who died saving her brother and sister", but it doesn't support anything about Chuck Suchy at all. So basically this is a biography of a living person that doesn't have any references.

However, there is no requirement to consult the author of a published work before citing that work as a source. Also, I don't believe the way the source is used, is significantly misleading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unusual indeed. The true story of Hazel Miner (perished saving her siblings in a blizzard) has inspired many artists over nine decades. Given the Chuck Suchy ballad was released in 1986/89 and the above story seems to've been written in 2008, we're almost using a later tribute to source an earlier one, like Jill Whitcomb says. I'm with Demiurge1000 in that I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's misleading. Hers is an account of the event; it is conceivable it's embellished to make it suitable for radio though.

Our article on the plucky heroine has checkable alternative references we can use, such as one from the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND). Now it's true there's no requirement to consult an author before referencing a story, and interestingly the "Dakota Datebook" site happens to be under partnership of SHSND. However, since it bothers the author and there's an as good or better source in the Hazel Miner article anyway we may as well use that instead. So shall it be! --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary Player

Gary Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gary Player has won 9 Major Championship and 9 Senior Major Championships. Commentators keep changing the number of senior major championships to 6, excluding the Senior British Opens. The Senior Open is and always has been considered a Major by every recognized professional golf tour around the world including the European Tour. The only exception was the US Tour (who now does count it). The PGA Tour did the same thing with The Open Championship on the regular tour for many, many years until that too was acknowledged and back dated. Wikipedia should reflect a truly global encyclopedia and needs to fall in line with the majority of the global golf organizations who do count The Senior from when it was established. GKLipsco (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor above is incorrect. These news articles here[34] and here[35] clearly say the tournament did not become a major championship till 2003 or after when Player won the tournament. The Champions Tour doesn't recognize[36] it as a major either before 2003 and the Champions is the predominate Senior Golf Tour in the World....William 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm writing to ask a neutral third party to review the recent changes to this page. Some material was added recently that seems to me to be biographical material about someone other than Michael Roach, but another editor vehemently claims that the material is notable and relevant to Michael Roach's biography. As the other editor points out, I am in fact a student of Michael Roach, and so I can't claim to be neutral on the subject. However, the other editor seems to be pushing a non-neutral point of view. In addition to re-adding the spurious biographical material, this editor also corrected some edits I made that tried to more accurately represent what was said in the cited sources. This editor again claims that I am pushing a non-neutral point of view, and while I do not think that is the case, I think it would be better that someone other than me make that determination. I think the article as it stands is quite inaccurate, not based on my personal knowledge, but based on the sources that are cited. Abhayakara (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looked a bit like coatracking of controversy in the BLP to me , as its disputed I have removed it for the time being - and pointed the user in this direction and requested consensus seeking discussion rather than replacement some of it was also cited to SCRIBD which is not reliable to link to in regard to content about living people and the other citations were clearly not mainstream and were primary - Youreallycan 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's your mainstream article about the death - I think no one had added this. I did NOT add this material originally. I came in and cleaned it up - reading the entry after it was added was the first I'd heard about it, which led to dozens of websites discussing it after. The sribd article is provided not as a source of the event, but as primary support info to fill out secondary and tertiary accounts (including Roach's - where he talks about that sribd letter from McNally), of which this one is significant and should be included (hasn't been yet.) Abhyakara's admission of being a student of Roach should immediately disqualify his opinion as biased, as guidelines state. He should bow out. Considering New York Times coverage of Roach's relationship with McNally, and the Post's about controversial behavior and McNally leaving Roach for Thorson, who she unarguably stabbed and he later died, how can this material not be included? We have the public letter from Roach himself describing the events. We have a news article describing the death. And we have the most visible Buddhistic/yogic magazine online (elephant journal), that describes itself as a news source, with a thorough, professional editorial comment on the events. I don't see the problem. And no, I have no bias against this guy. I never knew him from Adam until I read his WP entry and wondered why it was so puffed up, and started to untangle it.Tao2911 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tao - yes please present your desired addition here with the WP:RS that support it for users to investigate - One of my personal issues with the controversy was coatracking - the subject of the article appears to have been uninvolved completely? thanks - also - who added this content we should link them to this discussion? Are there any WP:RS about this? Youreallycan 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This external http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/news/article_d3131fc2-8ef2-11e1-855c-001a4bcf887a.html that you comment is a mainstream cite about the event fails to mention Roach (the subject of our biography) ? hence my issues in regards to WP:Coatrack of controversy -perhaps the crime/stabbing issue is notable for its own article but it doesn't look like it to me from my investigations and the sources presented - Youreallycan 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, YRC. The material is non-relevant to the biographical subject of the article (see WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE). Also, the Diamond Mountain website is a primary source of information. The content should not be re-included. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

it is relevant because all of this happened in his organization, which this entry covers. I guess by this logic we should go remove all mention of all his myriad organizations, because they don't have his name in the title? The page covers him, his organizations, his schools, his programs. That's what makes him "notable". The fact that his former "spiritual partner" and second in command (who no one is arguing for removing mention that she left him for the guy who's now dead) ROACH put in charge of the retreat where she stabbed Thorson, at ROACH'S "university"; ROACH kicked them out. They went to a nearby cave because they thought in this way they wouldn't be breaking the rules of ROACH's retreat. Come on. He's at the center of the whole thing. He's the founder of the feast. An article about Roach without this material is incomplete, and if I read it, I'd wonder why it was left out, suspecting exactly the bias that's arising here (from Abyhakara).Tao2911 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are flying off on a tangent here. This biography article is about the subject who is not directly connected with the incident you attempted to include in his article. "He's at the center of the whole thing." – Do you have any reliable sources which claim so? Anything else is simply original synthesis and therefore unacceptable on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How is he not directly related? The story is that she was leading a retreat ROACH put McNally in control of. ROACH came after the stabbing at the retreat ROACH organized, and told her to leave ROACH's university. They went to a cave and Thorson died, a mile away. ROACH was forced to issue a public statement on behalf of HIS organization, for which McNally and Thorson were the most visible faces besides Roach himself. I just find this willfully obtuse. Roach himself says he connected. I take his word for it, along with the other sources.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be no independent and WP:RS sources that asserts the subjects involvement in this stabbing - as I requested earlier - please avoid opining your personal knowledge about this and please present your desired addition here and the reliable citations WP:RS to support it and allow experienced uninvolved editors to investigate it - thanks - Youreallycan 22:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

the stabbing is not the point. No one says Roach stabbed anyone. The point is that events at Roach's Diamond Mountain University, which IS mentioned in the news story and featured prominently in the entry on Roach, are involved in the death of the husband of Roach's second, whom he authorized, and whom he fired. The myriad sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary, all linked in the passage, bore this out.Tao2911 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roach and the University he founded are distinct entities, aren't they? The rest is all original synthesis, which is unacceptable since you are deriving your own conclusions from information available to you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

no, I'm simply acknowledging connections Roach himself describes, about relationships that were found worthy of multi-page articles in the New York Times and Post. I don't know how they matter in one paragraph, and not the next. I don't know how he gets credit earlier in the entry for founding and being head of Diamond Mountain, and yet when things fall apart there it's no longer worth mentioning. Interesting.Tao2911 (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it with your opinionated commentary - what part of please present your desired addition and the WP:RS that support it here so as uninvolved experienced contributors can investigate it is a problem to you? Youreallycan 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

don't tell me what I can say and can't say, thanks. I provided links to sources. I am making the case to include the material. You don't like it or agree, fine. But having encountered you in other contexts here, I see the same aggressive and condescending attitude I've seen before, with the same types of selective misreads of sources. I am letting this one go. Enjoy your victory, Rob.Tao2911 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If i can weigh in here i would like to point out that Roach was instrumental in the decision to remove the leader of a retreat he (and the board) sanctioned at his own institution. This decision in one way or another lead to the death of one of his students. In that way, I must strongly state that I beelieve the info is relevant to the roach bio page

On another note, the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_McNally redirects to the Roach bio page, so therefore in my opinion either we make a separate christie McNally page and link it to the roach page, or we remove that redirect.. Tao2911... why dont you write that page. I think its a good idea and i think youd be a good person to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.142.222.226 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the term "coatracking." I hadn't heard that before. I would think that in order to be supported by a citation, the claim that Geshe Michael was instrumental in this event would have to be sourced from an article that also reported on the other members of the board; simply asserting that he is in charge and that the board, which consists of something like ten people, was not involved, would be WP:OR. Furthermore, to suggest that when someone is expelled from an institution, necessarily whatever decisions they make subsequently are the fault of those who expelled them, is again something that would require some serious scholarship to support. I'm not saying it could never happen that way, but to assert it without really strong supporting evidence would seem to me to be inappropriate.

I would appreciate it if folks could look at the other point I raised, though. In the paragraph preceding the one that's been described as "coatracking," several statements are made that draw conclusions based on what is said in the source cited that are not present in the source. I corrected this to remove the drawn conclusions, and my edits were reverted. The sentence in question currently says this: "Famed Tibetan scholar, former monk and friend of Roach, Robert Thurman, urged him to renounce his monastic vows, and when he refused, stopped speaking to him". I changed it to say this: "Famed Tibetan scholar, former monk and friend of Roach, Robert Thurman, urged him to renounce his monastic vows, a suggestion that Roach did not follow. Following this exchange, as of May of 2008, the two had not spoken." I will admit that this second text is weaker, but the New York Times article simply reports that as of the time of writing, they hadn't spoken. It does not say that they are no longer on speaking terms. It could be interpreted to mean that, but it doesn't say that. So to me this text seems to be WP:OR or worse, a conclusion drawn without the author even knowing one way or the other which interpretation is true. So I am arguing that the literal interpretation must be used, and that the conclusion must not be drawn. Speaking from my own knowledge as a disciple of Geshe Michael and a fan of Robert Thurman, I honestly don't know which interpretation is correct, but the interpretation that I corrected does seem out of character for Dr. Thurman.

In addition, there's another sentence that I changed. The current version, which is inaccurate, is as follows: "the Dalai Lama stated Roach's "unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness’s teachings and practices..." The updated version reads as follows: The Dalai Lama's office stated that Roach's "unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness’s teachings and practices..." The reason for the change is that the cited article quotes the Dalai Lama's office, and not the Dalai Lama. What the Dalai Lama may or may not have said is not stated in the article, and I'm aware of no formal announcement that's been published by the Dalai Lama's office online to which we can refer for clarification.

In both these cases, I think the edits I did made the article more accurate, but I would appreciate it if someone who is not in the midst of the controversy could weigh in on this question. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

apologies—the previous comment was mine. Abhayakara (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom Gabel

Resolved

 – Article move will be warranted when doing so is supported on the basis of the subject's identity according to reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom Gabel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tom Gabel recently came out as transgender and announced her intention to change her name to Laura Jane Grace. The article refers to her using female pronouns, which I believe is appropriate per MOS:IDENTITY. Does MOS:IDENTITY also support an article move to Laura Grace? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the name of the article can be modified once the subject changes their name? Meanwhile, we can include both the names within the lead section. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

Donald Tsang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang, Wikipedia talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles - when to include "Sir"?

The issue around use of the title "Sir" while referring to the subject of the article (specially in the lead section) has cropped up again. The previous discussion which took place here on the noticeboard clearly established that it is inappropriate to use a title which the subject no longer uses to refer to himself, however some editors on Talk:Donald Tsang insist that this is not the case. I think a summary resolution on this would be really helpful so that we could all devote our time to more productive endeavours on this project. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(Ongoing discussion here)

The usage of "Sir" in the lead section is referenced by multiple reliable sources, so there is no WP:BLP violation. Further note that Wikipedia:BLP#Public figures states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keeps insisting that inclusion of the title "Sir" is a WP:BLP violation. I do not see how the provisions of WP:BLP can be applied here. This is a style dispute, not a content dispute. No one is doubting that the subject is entitled to the title "Sir" but whether this should be in bolded text in the lead section.

Can someone here elaborate on WP:BLP's specific application to this case?--Jiang (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been previously advised, Jiang, that this is a BLP issue specifically, since it involves the biography of a living person. I have linked to the discussion that has occurred on this page before. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue by default perhaps, but nothing asserted here to suggest a BLP violation.--Jiang (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As I remember there is a feeling that the award could have some negative effect and as the subject doesn't use it that we shouldn't either, as I remember - Youreallycan 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The "ill effect", if you like to call it that, is the general appearance that could be created, and the implication that his loyalties lay with the British Crown rather than the PRC or the people of Hong Kong. But WP:WELLKNOWN is equally clear. This information is notable. It belongs, whether Tsang likes it or not. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are not hiding it - it is contained in the article - just not to portray him in the opening of the lede in a manner that he himself did not do - Youreallycan 14:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting somewhere, past the vague allegations by NHN of it being the BLP violation. It's common practice for our bios to have this information in the lead. Inclusion is indicated in WP:LEAD and WP:MOSINTRO, and it is strongly suggested in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. The bestowal of the knighthood is a highly notable fact that, by not having it in the lead, the reader would be astonished. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The "negative effect" argument sounds like plausible but there are many questions remain unresolved. How many pieces of information do we need to "cover up"/"relocate" in order to have the article be rewritten in a degree or in a manner he likes or endorses? We are not his agent/proxy, is it our duty to portray him in a way he likes in the article? Shouldn't we be politically netural, upholding objectivity in writing wikipedia biographical articles? As long as the facts exist, isn't it "self-deceiving" to eliminate the "negative effect" by moving the title to somewhere else? I afraid that if we treat this article differently from others regarding British titles, we will create a feeling to our readers that we are intentionally hiding something out of political reasons. So why dont we be straight-forward and be in-line with our existing established practice?

(1) The Wikipedia guidelines requires that full British titles and post-nominals be shown in the lead of the article of a substantive British honour receipient;

(2) Tsang is a receipient of a substantive British honour;

(3) Full British title and post-nominal should be shown in the lead of Tsang's article.--Clithering (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP is policy not just a guideline and encourages us to err on the side of caution in regards to disputed content in regards to living people - the good faith causes for concern as presented and the subjects own unwillingness to use the honorific added to the fact that we have included information about the title in the body of the article so the reader has lost absolutely no information imo allow us, encourage us to override the post-nominals guidelines and the MOS guidelines which says, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." - in this case - Youreallycan 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of our fellow wikipedians fear that moving the title to the content may commit the problem of self-censorship. And in similar cases such as Tam Dalyell and David Steel, title is not removed from the lead. --Clithering (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC, I am concerned that some of the editors here are motivated for political reasons rather than in the interest of keeping the encyclopedia neutral and objective. Donald Tsang has never used the title post-handover, and he has not expressed any intention to use his name in that manner in the foreseeable future. Clithering's response to this is that the subject has not renounced the title either. This in itself an attempt to push the discussion off a tangent where involved editors are expected to prove negatives. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democratic expression – we do not practice removal of material that is well-sourced but negative, however we do have history of respecting personal preferences of individuals as to how they wish to portray themselves. Wikipedia is not an instrument for political reform. The continuous bickering that has been going on Talk:Donald Tsang for the past few weeks is clearly not a product of discussions aimed at restoring objectivity and neutrality to the article but an attempt to game the system through circular arguments and constant badgering. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal was brought up on this page not too long ago. "Piyush" (his legal name) remains in the lead section, even though it is something he doesn't like to advertise. The default is to follow the Manual of Style - this is not requiring editors to prove that something does not exist (if that's what you mean by "prove negatives"), but that editors prove something would be derogatory and misleading in order to deviate from convention on Wikipedia. There is nothing to show that Tsang or the public at large regards the title as derogatory. Again, I don't see what part of the policy is specifically violated by including the title.

And also, please assume good faith. Trying to speculate on motives here is counter-productive - stay focused on the policy. --Jiang (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I think it is normal to have conflicting views in a discussion, but it does not help by accusing those who dont agree with you of being "politically motivated".--Clithering (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"some of the editors here are motivated for political reasons rather than in the interest of keeping the encyclopedia neutral and objective" I can find no other explanation to explain why we would want to de-emphasise a key and notable fact from the lead – An honour bestowed by the reigning monarch upon a civil servant for thirty years' service. It's not insistence on inclusion that's political, it's its insisting it should be de-emphasised because "he doesn't use it". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In wikipedia, Donald Tsang is not the only case, Tam Dalyell (a baronet), Ferdinand Mount (a baronet), John Standing (a baronet), Peter Ramsbotham (a viscount), Michael Ancram (a marquess) and David Steel (a life peer) also meet the case of "he does not use the title", but in these cases full title is used in the lead. Again I need to ask should Donald Tsang be treated differently? What's the rationale to keep full title at the lead for the other cases? I maintain the fact that Tsang does not use his British title on his name card in the capacity as Chief Secretary of HKSARonly. It does not equal to "he does not use it in other occassions". Even if he does not use it in all occassions, that's just his personal choice. He has never expressedly requested the general public stop addressing him with his title either. And in fact, not even title, so many people do not use their full name, peerage title, postnominals and etc. Why should we mention them in the lead then? --110.4.27.64 (talk)

"Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keeps insisting that inclusion of the title "Sir" is a WP:BLP violation." But it's in his userna.... oh. Right. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• it seems to have been demonstrated conclusively above that this is not a case of true "BLP violation" – it was used in a jingoistic and scaremongering manner. It's actually down to arguments about editors' preference 'sensitivity towards the subject'. Sir Nick can, of course, call himself any darn thing he likes, provided nobody else is using the username. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nate Weiss

Resolved

 – Given a good ol' scrub. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nate Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The majority of edits to this page have been done from the account "nswsoccer". This is quite clearly Nate Weiss himself. He has a personal YouTube account under the same name.

A perusal of the edits made by this account ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nswsoccer ) shows that he has deleted unflattering comments (including referenced ones) and added numerous, sometimes unverified, positive information about himself.

As a result of edits by "nswsoccer", the article appears to violate NPOV, V, and NOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.188.97 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,take a look now, I have tidied up and removed a lot of the vain, self-congratulatory wording. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Labbett

Does this chap's nickname justify comments about his weight? And does he strike others as particularly notable? My finger hovered over the AfD button... --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Sent to AfD, [37]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delphine Batho

A third party view of the most recent edits to this article is respectfully invited.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that sort of material belongs there only if it has received wider attention; the single source isn't sufficient for BLP purposes in my view. The source doesn't contain anything at all about the size and value of her apartment. Just to be clear -- I don't see a BLP problem with this sort of material in principle, but it needs better sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On second look: the Le Monde article does tell us how big her apartment is and shows wider attention to the issue. It doesn't support the 65% of market value claim. The phrasing of that sentence in the article does reflect some WP:OR, but it can probably be dealt with by means other than removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When I see an article stating a 65% discrepancy figure then visit the cited source (and Le Monde is a good source) and see only a 37% discrepancy, I start to wonder. When the same source has a rebuttal from the subject concerning the claim about her property's status as public housing as well as claims about her income, then for the sake of NPOV I wonder why that isn't in the article. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On my second look: of course it's actually the difference rounded up (only 65% of its value i.e. 37%ish difference). The approach on fr-wp is more simple with 37%! Incidentally I'm not sure "reserved" is technically correct as concern the appartements. Nevertheless, brief detail of her rebuttal would be good. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

David N Baker Jr

David Baker (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dr. Baker's daughter April was born in his first marriage. The article indicates that she is a product of his current marriage. This should be corrected immediately. His grand daughter is a young adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.89.9 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As the disputed material is completely unsourced, I have removed it from the article entirely. Are there any independent reliable sources that discuss Baker's children and grandchildren? If so, the correct information could be re-added to the article, with an inline citation to the source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch

Jack Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently I raised some issues about the Jack Welch article, including plagiarism from a cited source, as well as inaccurate information, among other topics. I am reluctant to change these myself, because my interests in fixing it relate to my employer (Strayer University) which owns the Jack Welch Management Institute. I know that WP:COI allows direct edits like this sometimes, but Id also prefer to be cautious and follow Jimbo's WP:BRIGHTLINE advisory. I've posted a fairly detailed explanation of changes there. Would someone here review them, and implement these changes? Thanks, --Hamilton83 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed , agreed and implemented - Thank you for the declaration and the quality of your edit request and explanation - Youreallycan 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Although from his comments in the interview this details appears correct, it didn't appear to be specifically cited and was challenged - "Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch" - I tweaked the wording to the source diff - you may have another source or can show its support in the original source ? - Thats been disputed now , I got that directly from the citation - anyway - you may want to discuss it with the objector - User:Hipocrite - Youreallycan 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Youreallycan, glad you agreed and could make the changes. I'm surprised that this sentence was contested:

Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch.

The information was in both articles I provided, as follows:

• The Bloomberg Businessweek article says:

Welch and his wife Suzy are also heavily involved in curriculum design, leaning heavily on the principles he used training managers at GE.

• The Wired Academic article says:

Jack and Suzy are active in hiring faculty and teaching in the program.

Would you be willing to replace my original sentence and remove the citation needed tag? --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am experienced in being reverted . LOL - Thanks for the added input and details - the best thing imo in this situation is .... I will bring the other editors here to comment - I have left the two users a note to this discussion - lets see if they have any continued objection - regards - Youreallycan 05:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being paid enough to argue with a paid advocate. Given the date on the Businessweek article, it is not a reliable source for what it was being used for, which is written like standard PR copy. Further, there is no BLP issue here, so this noticeboard is irrelevant. Have the paid advocate start an rfc. Are you being paid by him, or are you donating your time so he can make more money? Hipocrite (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? YRC has a strong reputation on BLPs and your direct accusation of being paid or having any improper motives is unwarranted and a gross personal attack here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing him of being paid - I'm asking him if he's being paid, or if he's donating his time to someone who is being paid. There's no other choice here. I think he should demand at least 50% of the cash that Hamilton83 is being paid to promote Strayer University, and I'll take the other half. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your post was entirely clear:

Are you being paid by him, or are you donating your time so he can make more money?

Seems incapable of being misapprehended. And your further post

I think he should demand at least 50% of the cash that Hamilton83 is being paid to promote Strayer University, and I'll take the other half.

Is also sufficiently clear. I think you should redact before you fall further behind. I oppose any "Paypedia" but I also oppose "WitchHuntPedia" as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Youreallycan and Hipocrite (and hi Collect), I appreciate your comments, although I feel I should point out I'm not a "paid advocate" but an employee of Strayer University. The suggestions I've been making are on behalf of the University, but are just one small part of my day-to-day job there. And to be very clear, I have not and would not offer payment to any volunteer editors here: it's important to me (and my employers) that unbiased volunteers are involved to ensure any edits are neutral.

On that note, can I ask why the Businessweek article isn't a reliable source for the sentence I suggested? The article was written at the time of the institute's launch (in June 2009) and describes how Welch had been planning the curriculum and was involved with faculty. If a change to the wording of the sentence is needed, I would be happy to do so, I'm just confused as to why you say it doesn't support it. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apology Hamilton for such a confrontational situation - I accept your contributing in good faith. I think the objection is that the wording created a from the start till now appearance and the statement in the article doesn't totally support that position because its historic article - have can/can you find another article that verifies the comment or reword it a bit? - Youreallycan 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The wording seems fine (and factual) to me. The Wired Academic article is recent. --JN466 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ow , ok. I was taking the objections at face value but if the comment is supported I will replace it, are there any continued objections? Youreallycan 16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I continue to object. The Wired Academic article does would support a statement that Welsh was involved with hiring and teaching, though that appears to be video presentations, not actual teaching. The Businessweek article does not support an ongoing role at all. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are aware it is an online program? The proposed text makes that clear. As for Welch's involvement, it is described and advertised here: [38]. Are you doubting the veracity of that page? --JN466 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the veracity of that page. Video presentations are not teaching, they are presentations. "The opportunity to speak with Jack directly through a live video conference at the end of each term," is not "actively involved with the ... students," nor was it the source cited. If his involvement is "weekly video addresses and one video conference per term," say that, not "actively involved with everything about the school!" Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed sentence is, "Welch has been actively involved with the curriculum, faculty and students at the online business school since its launch." That closely emulates what the sources have said, and the involvement appears to be ongoing. Teaching an online course does involve video lectures -- that's how an online course is taught. [39] --JN466 17:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing alleged BLP violations from article talk pages

So, I posted a question on an article talk page asking for an explanation of exactly what the BLP violation was. The entire section was removed by the person who claims it's a BLP vio. Since there's no external input on the related BLPN thread (Wikipedia:BLPN#BLP issues in Venezuela.2FChavez opposition candidates in election articles), I'm left wondering how this is supposed to be resolved. If this sort of approach is OK, almost anything can be removed citing "BLP", and then discussion of it shut down by again citing "BLP", all by a single editor without anyone agreeing. So... anyone care to comment? Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We had this on another page recently -- might have been Santorum. "It's a BLP violation, so we can't discuss how it's a BLP violation". That editor must think they're part of MI6 or the NSA or something along those lines. I support reverting that removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You can also link to the diff. But the discussion itself would necessitate including parts of the BLP violations as part of the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We've got the full discussion of the problematic text already here on this board; Rd232 also brought it to the Village Pump policy page;[40] the talk page of the article already contains a link to the discussion here:[41] how many new places do we need to replay text that is under BLP vio discussion? The question has been answered repeatedly; how many places are we going to spread this, and why do we need yet another talk section to further spread the text when there are already links and discussion on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned the previous discussion (still no other input, barring Jimbo managing to find his way there). The VPP discussion was about a different issue, namely guidance on use of a problem tag (though you did your best to try and make the discussion about the content the problem tag was applied to). We wouldn't need a new section if you hadn't created a new problem, by (i) refusing to explain how it's a BLP vio in the article and (ii) then insisting it's a BLP vio so egregious it can't even be discussed on the talk page. So will you explain i and ii here and now? Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be discussed again on article talk, when it is completely covered here and already linked from article talk. It is a mystery to me what still needs explaining; would you mind keeping this in one section (the one above)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where or how often I ask the question, you still won't or can't answer it: how is

According to state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), the allegations Silva was referring to were made by the Chief Inspector of the police of Baruta referring to a May 2000 incident. Capriles was elected Mayor of Baruta several months after the alleged incident in the 30 July 2000 regional elections, and according to RNV, the policeman says Capriles used his position to avoid indecency charges and to "have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process". RNV says the policeman said he had received a "barrage of slanderous attacks that led to disciplinary actions" and wanted to clear his name.

a BLP violation, especially bearing in mind the current paragraph two at Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012#Allegations_against_Capriles, which it was supplementing before you deleted it? And again, since I keep asking and you won't answer: (i) is Mario Silva exempt from BLP considerations and (ii) why is it acceptable to make it look like Silva invented the allegations, rather than merely repeating the allegations from another source? Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

would you mind keeping this in one section (the one above)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

allrighty then, I'll move it back to the section above myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines?

Do we have any guidelines on this issue? I've only very rarely seen good-faith content removed from talk pages even for BLP-related reasons, and I'm not sure I recall it ever being done by an involved party. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From our WP:BLP page:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

It was already under discussion here, and linked from talk to here. Adding the text again to talk was gratuitous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that WP:BLP includes that passing mention. That tells us nothing practical about when a BLP vio is so serious we can't even discuss it on a talk page. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moot. It was being discussed here. That is what should be done. That no one would touch it is another issue, not reason to continue raising it in other places. No one is going to die if we have to wait a few days before smearing someone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't perceive a BLP violation in the text Rd232 proposes to add. (I certainly don't think it's such a BLP violation that it merits being deleted from an article talk page.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are we now going to hold this discussion in five places? It was removed from talk because it was a BLP issue already under discussion in multiple places. If someone would like to join this section with the same section above, I can consolidate responses and not have to continue typing the same thing five times in five places. Then we might discuss on what basis you see no BLP violation, but not when the discussion is fragmented unncessarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved it myself; I can see no reason for this discussion to have been carried on in five different places, and two on this page at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We're doing it here as well because you took it upon yourself to delete something from an article talk page on the basis that it was a BLP violation. That's how we've ended up with another section, and that's the aspect of the issue that I'm most interested in here. Your action on the article talk page was needlessly inflammatory -- so here we are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Steve Allen (radio presenter)

Steve Allen (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm writing on behalf of Steve Allen, who I work with.

His wikipedia page has been regularly updated by the same person, who adds his home address, incorrect information and homophobic comments. We remove the comments, but this person keeps putting the comments back up - things like "he says he never slept with a woman". He also wrote a letter to Steve at home.

Is it possible to block this person from updating the page, or lock the page down?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.49.249 (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a sample of the bad edit. I have semi-protected the page, which will prevent the anonymous ip number from further vandalism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Victor Pinchuk

Victor Pinchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have posted to the talk page of this article. Raising the issue but not making the edit myself, per my explanation there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up - also fixed the unusual language therein a bit. Collect (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gene McVay

Gene McVay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gene McVay does not appear to be someone who should have a Wikipedia page. Information on the page is poorly sourced at best and appears to be maintained by friends/family. His chief claim to fame that he ran for governor of Arkansas in 1998 and lost doesn't appear to be true:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=5&year=1998&f=0&off=5&elect=0

I'd advise deletion. The page looks to be a personal advertisement for his book and his military career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnman1234 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given it a bit of a once-over, removing a lot of the fluff and generally unsourced, overlong detail. Haven't checked on his inherent notability, any takers? BTW, Damnman1234, you are authorized to propose articles for deletion yourself, see here. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion. I hope I did so correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnman1234 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, a review of the contributions and the edits of the page seems to indicate that most of the edits and contributions were made by Gene McVay himself Damnman1234 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that was certainly Bold of you, see my post below, haven't had a lot of dealings with BLPPROD, let's get some feedback, not entirely sure that he's editing his own article although the username TOPGunF16 or whatever it is does only make edits to his article and the article where he comes from. Maybe a fanboy/fangirl? (Light Over Land in case people hadn't noticed). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPPROD hovering like a hawk

Anne-Catherine Lacroix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shivshakti Sachdev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, some imput please, even with an "m", NPP, wanted to nuke and, as the title says, hovering like a hawk. Can we BLPPROD if the sources are rubbish? I'm in two minds about this as the whatchamacallit says "no refs" but also "reliable sources", IMHO the refs are junk, profile listings, databases, fan content, I just wanted to reach out and get some experienced (I've been thru' this, I know what you mean) feedback on this. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)