Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Daniel Tammet

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)

Misapprehensions by User JFHJr. Context is "denouncing pi record in website" contrary to all media reporting. Secondly, your edit regarding non-synaesthetic response to letters imposes a definite restriction to context which, not necessarily is true. Thirdly, please refrain from making derogatory remarks about users. Respectfulness and civility are fundamentals by which Wikipedia operates. Please remove the remark. 188.28.140.237 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rick Thomas

Resolved

 – Deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 05:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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. [1][2] 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, [3], 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)

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. [4][5]. 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

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. [Resolved. Thank you.]

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: "The plaintiff, Ashley Alexandra Dupré dropped the suit after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed." Makes more sense if it reads: "In April 2008, Ashley Alexandra Dupré filed, and then dropped a lawsuit against Girls Gone Wild after Francis released footage showing her agreeing to be filmed."

5. Regarding line: On March 25, 2008, four women sued him in Florida for filming them while underage, with one girl saying she had been 13 when filmed.[15] On April 7, 2011, the jury ruled that no financial damages would be awarded for "emotional distress".[16] Makes more sense and is unbiased if it reads: "In March 2008, four women filed suit against Girls Gone Wild in Florida for allegedly filming them while underage. Francis and GGW were vindicated by an all-female jury on April 7, 2011, when the jury decided that none of the plaintiffs was entitled to damages." Also, this should probably be moved up to the "Civil" section, above.

6. Regarding the section "Charges in Florida" generally, the section is poorly written, has typos, is completely biased, states charges that were never proven, etc. This is a biography, not a rap sheet filled with irrelevant/erroneous charges that never came into being. I revised the section as follows, and would like the changes to be incorporated: "In a 2003 incident in Panama City Beach, Florida, Francis was arrested and released on a $165,000 bond. Francis' private jet and other property were confiscated.[9] However, the judge ultimately disallowed much of the evidence,[10] and on January 4, 2007 dismissed most of the charges, ruling that the remaining evidence did not support the allegations. The seized assets were returned. Francis was fined $1.6 million and ordered to perform community service for 18 U.S.C. § 2257 record-keeping violations.[11] In April 2007, while detained for contempt of court, Francis allegedly offered a guard money for bottled water. Authorities allegedly found prescription medication including Lunesta and Lorazepam on Francis, which he claimed he had previously disclosed.[12][13] On March 12, 2008 Francis pled no contest to child abuse and prostitution, and was sentenced to time served.[14]"

7. Regarding the next section "Federal criminal tax problems" again, the section is terribly written, disjointed, contains a lot of simply irrelevant material, etc. I mean, the stuff about the setting and vacating of the trial date? Who cares! Also the fact that Joe was late to court one day? Again, this is stupid and irrelevant. I revised the section as follows, and would like the changes to be incorporated: "On April 11, 2007, Francis was indicted by a federal grand jury in Reno, Nevada on two counts of tax evasion.[15] The Department of Justice alleged that Francis had claimed over $20 million in false business deductions on his corporate tax returns during 2002 and 2003.[16] The Los Angeles Times quoted his attorney, Jan L. Handzlik, as saying: "The government has chosen to make a criminal case out of what we believe to be, at most, a civil tax dispute..."[15] Francis pleaded not guilty, arguing that the tax returns for the businesses were prepared and filed by a former corporate accountant without his approval. Francis' attorney pointed out that when the accountant left the company, he contacted the IRS to report the accounting mistakes with the hope of collecting a bonus from the government Tax Whistleblower Program.[17] Francis ultimately pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns, and was directed to pay restitution. He received credit for time served, and would be subject to one year of supervised release.[18] “It took us seven months, but in the end we demonstrated that the felony tax charges never should have been brought in the first place. As a result, the indictment was dismissed and the charges were reduced to only two misdemeanors with no jail time." Brad Brian, lead trial attorney, [19]"

I really appreciate the feedback and editing assistance of the community on some of these issues, and hope we can one day arrive at an article that is more becoming and characteristic of Wikipedia and just intellectually honest and interesting to read. Thank you. --Aaftergo (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)aaftergo

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)

The further edits indicate the article still isn't quite stable as far as content. I'll have a look when I can, but I thought this thread should stay alive in case others also have a look. JFHJr (㊟) 05:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, JFHJr. Just looking for someone to give this page a reasonable, fair and objective review, and help it read less like a rap sheet or 4th grade book report, and more like a biographical article about a living person. --Aaftergo (talk) 04:27, 13 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)

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)

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 descent rather 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)

Youreallycan—Are you saying that Adam Yauch "denied" being Jewish? I'm referring to your post immediately above, at 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC). If that is what you are saying, could you please present us with a source for such denial. I'm certainly not aware of any such denial. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 11 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."[6]

"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."[7]

"Beastie Boys’ Adam Yauch, Jewish legend and hip-hop pioneer, has died."[8] 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"[9] 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 ([10]) 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 [11] 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. [12] 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)

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

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

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 [13]
2. An opinion piece published on the daily telegraph (Australia) website [14]
3. Anthony Julius (2010) Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (Oxford University Press) [15]

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 [16]. Clare Short appears in the book three times [17], 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)

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)

I've endorsed. JFHJr (㊟) 05:39, 12 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)

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Labbett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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, [18]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delphine Batho

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

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 concerns 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: [19]. 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. [20] --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;[21] the talk page of the article already contains a link to the discussion here:[22] 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)

I do perceive a BLP violation in it. State-controlled media in a country with no freedom of the press is not a reliable source, so this is using an unreliable source for negative comments about a living person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:57, 12 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. 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)

Shivshakti got deleted. Again! Maybe it'll stay deleted, but I'd keep an eye on the article space if I were you. My impression is that the sourcing at Anne-Catherine Lacroix is incredibly weak and does not present reliable coverage that could support notability. It might be double-checking at WP:RSN to see if the sources are good for anything at all. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy White

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 05:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The first paragraph is nonsensical rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.12.168 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the first paragraph of the 'Early Life' section. This was vandalism, and I've reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig James (American football)

Craig James (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple BLP issues are again presenting themselves at Craig James (American football), some blatant, some more subtle. On the blatant side, a number of IP editors are once again posting nastiness in the article and on the talk page relating to an unpleasant internet meme that semi-jokingly, and falsely, accuses James of a very serious crime when he was in college.[23][24][25] Of a subtler nature are edits about James' dispute with Mike Leach that put a POV spin on that dispute and may also constitute BLP violations as to James' son Adam; these edits may superficially have sources, but under our BLP policies those sources are probably deficient. For an example, see [26] This article has been to BLP/N before[27]. More eyes are greatly appreciated.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the deposition sentence - can't cite to a primary source for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nikolic

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

Editing of this page has been semi-protected until 13 May 2012. The recently-added Controversy section of this page contains subjective and emotive content (e.g. "international ridicule", "threatening response"). In addition, since the edited content admits that the comments allegedly made by Mr Nikolic have been deleted, verification of the screenshots mentioned in the edit is not possible. Mr Nikolic contends that the screenshots contained comments that he did not make. A fake account purporting to be him appeared on Facebook around this time, and posted obscenities to his Facebook page. These obscenities were screenshotted and a complaint was made to Facebook. The offending page was subsequently deleted by Facebook Admin. Other Facebook sites have been springing up in the past week satirising and defaming Mr Nikolic. In light of the general nature of the movement happening here, and the fact that the edits are being perpetrated by political opponents of Mr Nikolic, the "Controversy" edit on this page should be scrapped, and a longer-lasting protection should be added to the page to prevent further malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catagunyah (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it - as undue trivia - Youreallycan 06:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, I agree with both of the above. However, it is obvious and documented in reliable sources that there is indeed "a Controversy". I believe the article should contain objective mention that there is a Controversy. I agree that what is/was there is/was overstated and not objective. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be anything there. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As a local to the event (which may make it easier to search and find sources) can you please present some wp:reliable sources this issue is reported in so as users can evaluate the content/desired addition - thanks - Youreallycan 16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a noteworthy event, particularly as it looks like it's possibly ending the subject's political career. I too am local and aware of this story being printed in numerous reliable Australian and international media sources. I will revert the deletion, add references, and attempt to edit for appropriate tone. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you present the citations here first for investigation and discussion, as the content is as you can see - contentious thanks - Youreallycan 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Google.com.au produces dozens of related links:

• version1 - 11:24am 9 May 2012
  • http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/05/09/326671_tasmania-news.html
• James Manning article - and some of the identical copies - I stopped looking when I had found a dozen copies
  • http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
  • http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
  • http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberal-candidate-threatens-facebook-users-over-satirical-article-20120508-1y9v3.html
• comments in "newspapers" that I can't guarantee as WP:RS
  • http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/08/nikolic_threatens_facebook_users/
  • http://news.techeye.net/internet/aussie-politician-threatens-to-get-facebook-likers-fired
  • http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/social-networking/75064.html
• International comment
  • http://punto-informatico.it/3514348/PI/News/quando-satira-online-colpisce-permalosi.aspx
• The "Andrew Nikolic Blocked Me" page seems to have been removed
  • http://www.facebook.com/AndrewNikolicBlockedMe

Etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/general/nikolic-cops-online-abuse/2550654.aspx (paper most local to incident)

Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess a controversy does exist, and has reliable sources after all, although the "Register" might be a dubious source. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 04:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is edit warring of this disputed content into the biography - its disputed facebook comment and they are warring these undue comment style into the article - Nikolic garnered international ridicule in May of 2012 = INTERNATIONAL RIDICULE ? Youreallycan 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

a) Please don't use caps lock. b) You are the one who is edit warring. c) Yes, ridicule. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, international ridicule. He is being held up as a laughing stock by people in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, America, etc. However, in the interest of neutral tone, "ridicule" has been changed to "criticism". Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the addition is not neutral - and I have added a NPOV template until it is - Youreallycan 05:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ridicule" changed to the more neutral "criticism" in the interest of tone- though I think "ridicule" was certainly accurate. Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original use of "ridicule", but in the interest of closing this issue, which clearly has been resolved, I'll accept the inaccurate "criticism". Pdfpdf (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "Ridicule" has been changed to "criticism" in the interest of tone. As for "threatening response", he made a threat in his response so this is not subjective nor "emotive content".

2. Nikolic made the comments himself and posted the matching info-trolled data on the people he threatened to his established account, establishing that it was indeed Nikolic and not an imposter who made the threats. While he may have thought that by deleting the posts he was erasing all the evidence of his behavior, on being confronted with proof in the form of the screenshots he was unable to further categorically deny what he had done.

3. Imposter accounts are irrelevant to this matter. It is just as likely that they were created by Nikolic himself as an attempt to provide a cover-story to hide his behavior ex post facto.

4. Regardless of who is entering the information into the wiki page, the information is factual, heavily referenced (now), and of sufficiently neutral tone to be appropriate. Just because something is stated by a person of differing opinion does not make it untrue.

5. Yes, numerous Facebook pages, articles, Youtube videos, and the like are appearing that are criticising and satirizing Nikolic since the scandal erupted. This is because a very large number of people have some very strong negative reactions to Nikolic threatening people online, attempting to censor the internet, using intimidation to stifle opposing political perspectives, and then lying about his own behavior. Not only is this the understandable, and indeed even expectable, response of the populace- but further, it too is totally irrelevant to the presentation of factual and well-referenced information of a neutral tone on the subject's wiki page.

Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although ridicule itself is POV, the factual reporting of ridicule, backed up by numerous reliable sources, is fact, not POV. As I said above, I believe that use of the word "ridicule" is accurate and justifiable. But in the interest of closing this discussion, I'll let it pass. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

alex thomas pornographic actor

Resolved

 – speedily deleted

Alex Thomas (pornographic actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is false information about a living person and as such defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary101w (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article has been tagged for speedy deletion as no information on the notability of the individual has been provided. It's even worse since the supposed external link also has next to nothing on this person. Thanks for mentioning this, and hopefully this will be gone soon. --McDoobAU93 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think speedying this is appropriate; the underlying subject meets the general standard of minimal significance for performers required for A7, though I really doubt he satisfies the GNG. That said, this is a symptom of a significant BLP problem. User:Ash, now User:Fæ, created a large number of dreadfully sourced/functionally unsourced (and, too often, deceptively or fraudulently sourced) bios of gay porn performers, many of whom appeared using common names as, or otherwise generic, pseudonyms. These minimally notable, at best, stage personae are frequently confused with more notable people with corresponding real names (or, occasionally, stage names); the problem is compounded when the names are mislinked in lists. The immediate case is the second in recent weeks where a mainstream performer has become entangled with a porn industry performer about whom we really have no reliable biographical information and only a trivial claim to notability. Coincidentally, I nominated another article of this type (created by a different editor) for deletion earlier today (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Steers). Trying to handle such articles in bulk or in many similar nominations in a short time has been contentious in the past, but the underlying mess really needs to be cleaned up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page was created based upon an extremely well sourced article from the Washington Post, and been copied by hundreds of newspapers, and replied to by Romney. However, there is a strong desire among editors to remove the article since it may harm their political candidate. This would be akin to removing any mention of Watergate because Nixon supporters didn't want any mention of it. The Washington Post obviously knew how important the story was which is why they took the time to get so many witnesses before running the story. Pbmaise (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article has been nominated for deletion just like previous articles feeding off of supposed political scandals (like Sandra Fluke, Obama Ate a Dog and "Forward" being code for socialism). If anything, belongs as a blurb at Mitt Romney, and certainly not as its own article. Feel free to discuss at the deletion discussion linked above. --McDoobAU93 15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The page is based on an excellent article from the WP, but I still don't think it merits its own page. If anything it deserves a short mention on the main Romney page. Being a jerk in high school is not quite on par with Watergate. a13ean (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The page has some copyvio issues too. Parts of the lead are taken straight from the WaPo article, without any attribution. Hot Stop 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "However, there is a strong desire among editors to remove the article since it may harm their political candidate" are not appropriate here. You have no business speculating upon the motives of users. If someone is editing in bad faith that can be discussed, but believe it or not there are people on this planet who disagree with you, not because they have some personal agenda, but because they don't think your argument makes sense. Don't make it personal. SÆdon^talk 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mm, prep school hazing? That's probably a minor incident in Romney's life, although it may be indication of a willingness to bully. Nonetheless, I'm not so sure it demands its own page just yet. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 04:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

David Mapley

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

This article is a spoof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.222.32 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed back some of the uncited silliness, fixed some of the strange wording, and added a couple of templates. I'm not seeing the spoof aspect, but there may be problems with notability. You may wish to consider sending the article to WP:AFD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasilla High School

Wasilla High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would an editor experienced with the BLP policy, review this edit for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE:

Wasilla High School received widespread criticism in 2011 for principal Dwight Probasco's decision to remove the band Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" from the school's jazz choir lineup for a graduation ceremony, due to the homosexuality of the band's lead singer, Freddie Mercury. The school later reversed it's decision. It attracted notoriety again in February, 2012 when a statue said to resemble a vagina was erected in front of the school by its administrators. The work was later covered with a tarp by the principal until the work's artists were able to give explanatory workshops on the statue's meaning.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is actually two different principals under discussion, so a sensible first step would be to remove the name of the first one from the article (he's not notable anyway). That pretty much removes the BLP problem, leaving more minor problems such as the slightly unclear wording (the sources say the complaint was about the lead singer being gay, they don't specifically say the principal's decision was for that reason) and the fact this sort of thing shouldn't be in the lead, and possibly shouldn't be in the article at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the sources and the edit. I agree that the principal's name should be removed if the content is kept. For the content about the removal of "Bohemian Rhapsody" from the jazz choir lineup, two articles are cited: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/13/Queen_Song_Causes_Stir_at_Wasilla_High_School and http://gawker.com/5801439/wasilla-high-school-principal-bans-bohemian-rhapsody-because-freddie-mercury-was-gay. I'm not sure if the former is an acceptable source, but I'm certain Gawker is not. The Advocate links to http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2011/05/12/local_news/doc4dc8c8e0a76f2219524721.txt, but that link is now a dead link. One dubious source, one unreliable source, and one dead link are insufficient for mentioning this content.

I think the mention of the sculpture is WP:UNDUE, maybe violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and probably shouldn't be included in the article.

I'm leaning on removing the entire edit from the article but will await further opinions from the editors at this board. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement from me about removing the principal's name, but The Advocate is an acceptable reliable source for this, and this story was also reported in other media sources such as the Anchorage Daily News[28], and the New York Daily News[29].--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No lengthy reply as I'm going to sleep, but the deadlinked story The Advocate refers to is at [30]. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of news coverage for this incident, so it belongs in the article. It probably should be moved from the article's lead to its body somewhere. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would remove it - its not long term encyclopedic noteworthy content in an article about a school - If you really want to keep it - please get it out of the lede asap - its the kind of thing a pupil would writew because he was there and it was important to him - that is no excuse to bloat the article with the trivia for the next twenty years - Youreallycan 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede - as I said - I don't support its continued presence in the article so I did not replace it - Youreallycan 03:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) Basically agree. With ephemeral trivia like the first item it doesn't belong in the article, making analysis of sources or their relative merits (precious little for gossip blog Gawker), determining precisely what's said, and attaining neutrality of prose superfluous. Youreallycan's recentism point on the event's insignificance in the schools' overall history is bang on. As for the local artist duo's front lawn sculpture, maybe a brief mention although no need for it in the lead. The school will continue to get media attention due in part to slow news day syndrome and partly because it counts Sarah Palin as an alumna. We needn't log it all. --92.6.200.56 ^{(formerly 92.6.211.228)} 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion about whether this information belongs in the article. I can see the arguments for both sides so will leave the article as it is after having been edited by Youreallycan. Thank you everyone for reviewing the possibly problematic edit I pointed out. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive use of this noticeboard?

I wonder if BLP issues are better discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Is the noticeboard better than the talk pages? Does it serve a purpose better than the articles' talk pages? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of dispute resolution, you're absolutely correct. When it comes to bringing an issue to the attention of experienced editors, or simply asking to watch, it's alright. What's awful is when this board fractures discussion, or simply draws out and repeats what's in talks. In comparison, I see overeager appeal to this board as very easily remedied: tell them to take it back to talk. Several volunteers here are not hesitant to recommend it, and more of us actively steer conversation back to talk. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

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

• previous post

I'm running into a problem at Ira Einhorn. A newly registered SPA, TruthTime8752 (talk · contribs), has reverted my efforts at an article that assigns appropriate weight to a "controversy" section. The section references media accounts of court proceedings, emphasizing the sworn nature of certain disavowments. Other collateral changing in sourcing and lead content are also problematic.

Another editor has stepped in to assist, but the opinions and eyes of any available BLPN contributors would be invaluable. JFHJr (㊟) 05:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this gem and this effacement show a pattern here. JFHJr (㊟) 06:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

British Virgin Islands national football team's Current Squad section tampered

I'm here to report that one of the sections of the British Virgin Islands national football team has been tampered by a number of unknown users I have yet to acknowledge, and I am unable to make any reverts because the tampered section somehow remained. It would be helpful if anyone would assist me on restoring the Current Squad section back in its current state and find the user responsible for tampering with the sections by adding fake date of births. JMBZ-12 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Another editor restored some of the vandalized birth dates, and I restored two others. Finding who's "responsible" would require going through the history to see who changed what when. If that editor is still editing, you would then want to add a template to their Talk page.

I've also added a tag to the Current squad section because nothing in the section has any references, including the "correct" birth dates.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Although one curent squad player, Euan Cole, has the fake DoB, who claims to be 2 September 2008, which is, in fact, fake that was added by an unknown user. I could try and fix it, but because of the lack of page for his name, I have no knowledge about his date of birth. JMBZ-12 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Any redlinked entry must be sourced. Even bluelinked entries should be sourced. However, if the DOB in the player's own article is the same AND it is sourced in that article, I'd be inclined to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Morris

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

Another contributor used the edit summary "Gone, this is defamation per se." when they made this edit.

I wrote the section they excised. I did my best to keep it in a neutral voice, and I believe I succeeded.

I'd appreciate the opinion of uninvolved third parties as to whether that section lapsed from our policies on defamation -- or any other policy. I'd appreciate it if any third party who thought there was a problem with that section could explain why they thought it was a problem.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I agree that the wording was quite neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about edits from over a year ago. Why are you bringing this up now? Two of the links in support of the material are no longer available. Based on the one link that is, I think what you wrote could have been worded significantly better, and I'm not sure it warranted its own section. Also, given that this happened in 2008, what has happened since? What happened to the case that was brought by the lawyers? I wouldn't want to restore the material, even better worded, without an update. Otherwise, it's just accusations. As for the removing editor's edit summary, I really wish people wouldn't use legal terms like "defamation" in summaries or generally in any discussions. It's distracting and often wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the dates here; I agree that it shouldn't be restored without an update. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew_Nikolić#Facebook_claims

Andrew_Nikolić#Facebook_claims

Can uninvolved experienced editors please assess and comment on this content please - Youreallycan 19:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. At the same time, something short about it (and not its own section) would probably be reasonable given that he's a public figure. If it becomes more of a big deal over time, then that could potentially be changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks can you please keep an eye on the issue and input if possible - there is a lot of partisan input - Youreallycan 19:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Bellesiles

Michael A. Bellesiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous BLPN discussion

I'm not getting anywhere convincing two other editors that a LONG repeat of negative information from another article doesn't belong in the Bellesiles article. See this discussion. It strikes me as attacking to duplicate information in multiple places with the rationale that it's "well sourced". And for the life of me, I can't figure out why they'd want to put it all back in while a "compromise" is reached rather than the other way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The scandal about Arming America is what makes Bellesiles noteworthy. A whole chapter was dedicated to it in Peter Charles Hoffer, Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud--American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin (Public Affairs Press, 2004).--John Foxe (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the only thing that makes Bellesiles noteworthy, then we can delete his article as we already have a separate article about the book. We don't need an attack article about the author.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course ^{(struck per LS' userpg)} In my view it doesn't belong. We don't allow content forks, it's why we speedy delete articles under {{Db-a10}}. Summary style does not equal duplication. As for it being "well sourced", well I can source lots of things well, it doesn't make principles on disinterestedness, WP:WEIGHT, and content forks null and void. I've read the current article. Apart from framing, bibliography and brief resume information it's near exclusively about "the scandal". Even the section that purports to concern him after all of that, title onwards has focus on "the scandal". As for the restoring the moment by moment description present in the other article into this one, again that's not how we do articles. -92.6.200.56 21:51, 12 May 92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then put the article up for AfD.--John Foxe (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In your view—aside from on the scandal—can anything much besides basic résumé information actually be written (from Reliable Sources) about Bellesiles? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you define "much." But what defines (and will always define) Bellesiles is the scandal.--John Foxe (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The present problem with the article is that an editor removed 16K of longstandingly unchallenged material from a stable article, without discussing it on the talk page. When another editor restored it, the first editor removed it again. Discussion ensued, and the first editor began justifying his actions, in part by claiming that the material removed violates WP:BLP. BLP in a Nutshell says: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." The disputed material meets all those standards, and withstood years of scrutiny and editing by many editors before being summarily removed without discussion. Lou Sander (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd be very interested to hear your response to the question I asked John Foxe above. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I created a temp subpage based on the current article. In the subpage I omitted content predominantly-focused on the book/controversy and converted résumé data (degree/employment dates & places) to list form, so we can more easily see what's left. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(smiling) very clever and to the point.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no BLP problem with any of the material in the unredacted article. The temporary subpage looks like it was written by Bellisiles himself, in that it fails to mention the one thing in his career that made him a household word. I plan to make things whole by restoring the improperly deleted material. Ohio Mailman (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Mailman, I would proceed cautiously. Although you have had an account since 2007, you have made precisely 36 edits in those years, of which only 20 were to articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

^{(ec x3)} Let's try not to all talk past each other (is! isn't!) please.

1. All involved editors seem to agree it's appropriate to cover the book/controversy on Wikipedia to some extent, some way, somewhere. What we disagree on is the extent and manner of coverage in each article. Right now we've two articles: one on the book, one on the man.
2. The purpose of the subpage is to easily see other existing biographical content on Bellisles. It's not a push to purge Wikipedia of the controversy.
3. If nothing can be written in a biographical article besides name, rank and serial number (i.e. résumé data: qualifications, occupations plus bibliography) it brings into question whether we should have one. Right now the only content in the subpage beside that is a controversy-that-wasn't and a solitary reviewer's comment best described as damning with faint praise.

If the book controversy is the only thing that can be written about the task is already accomplished—with the separate book article. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no BLP problem with this article in its original form. Those who have asserted it have epically failed to back it up. My nose tells me there is a childish effort underway to purge the entire article, based on reasoning even more spurious than the undefended assertion of biography problems. Bellisles is a fraudulent academic. That needs to be said, and has been said for many years in the article. I encourage Ohio Mailman to revert the article to its consensus driven form. Good Cop (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem -- it is not up to us to prove that anyone is a fraud - it is up to us to represent what reliable sources say in an even-handed manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Question. What problem do you see? If it is the BLP problem, please explain it. Good Cop (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

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

The Paul Ryan article is top heavy with references to Ayn Rand. His interest in that author is worth mentioning, once, not several times. Ryan is a leading political figure and the article should remain focused on policy, rather than searching for controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I count three mentions. I don't see this as "searching for controversy". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose the paragraph about Rand might be a little more than needed, but it's a judgment call and certainly not obviously undue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Costa Dillon

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

There are essentially no sources whatsoever for his biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.33.36 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the inline {{cn}} tags you added with a "BLP sources" tag at the top since there were a large amount of them. It looks like you changed the picture size by mistake, so I fixed that. The article does have sources, although not necessarily as inline citations to all the (non negative in this case) biographical information. Inline citations are preferred for verification purposes. The article's main points are he's a Superintendent of the NPS and created Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Is there any content you specifically find a problem? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Bowman

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

Joshua Bowman did not go to Bradfield ....... He is NOT Jewish ........ He did NoT date Amy Winehouse I know this because I am his Mother ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.61.58 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it. I agree with your edits. I've removed the poorly sourced mention of dating Amy Winehouse. It was in a showbiz gossip piece and at most amounted to him reportedly saying "we're just very friendly". I also removed mention of him having dated Miley Cyrus sourced to gossip mag US Weekly since "has been linked to" generally means they stood next to each other at some point. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 92.6 about the lackluster sourcing. Although what a mother knows doesn't trump better reliable sources, nearly any challenge in this case is enough to merit removal. I am ambivalent whether to retain the source at all within the article; other editors might reasonably remove it altogether. But I did remove the religious categories as apparently baseless. JFHJr (㊟) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't see the categories, good catch. Another editor reverted the material back in with Twinkle, I've re-removed it and left them a note pointing to the discussion here. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the sources in question for the religious identification are Abba Nibi (states as an aside, with no source) and Entertainmentwise (citing "a source" to the Daily Express). I find these questionable. Religion seems not to have much context in this subject's biography to start with. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Porscia Yeganeh

Porscia Yeganeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like personal memoir and needs some attention.--173.78.125.151 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. “At an early age Porscia aspired to be a fashion designer. Her remarkable talent and eye for fashion was evident since she was a child growing up in Iran. This was the start of her hunger for fashion...”  The recent Talk page discussions indicate somebody is trying hard to improve the article but is a little unfamiliar with the tone/style used here. It's actually quite a pleasant and easy read. It's just the prose is closer to a {{magazine}} article. I'll go help at the article and Talk page. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Silveira

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

Majority of page fails to adhere to the NPOV policy, tone is not dispassionate, content is heavily biased, and the whole thing is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.65.237 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The tone is awful. Why did you change the DOB in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Clifford

Mark Clifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography on Mark Clifford is frequently edited by Clifford himself. He seems to like to add certain details which are, to my mind, not notable or otherwise sourced only to primary sources. In this recent edit, he has once again inserted his election as parent governor of the English Schools Foundation. He has also added to his bio his membership of the Oxfam Trailwalker Advisory Committee, the Council on Foreign Relations and the editorial board of the Asian Review of Books. How appropriate are all these mentions? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this sort of stuff get us into résumé territory, particularly as they do not appear to be discussed in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is probably more of a WP:COIN issue than a WP:BLPN one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The article appears largely based upon press releases, bare mentions and the like. The closest it comes to substantive is in coverage of the controversy over Clifford's firing of a couple of subeditors -- but that's very much WP::BLP1E and could be handled in South China Morning Post, if the incident really is thought noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)