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.

Howard Fineman

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

Hello, there are two minor errors that warrant correction in the Howard Fineman biographical article. I spotted these errors because I work with Howard Fineman. Because my employment relationship presents a WP:COI, I was wondering if someone here on the BLP/N would be able to review and make these two corrections:

1. Update the first sentence of the intro paragraph to read as: "Howard Fineman is an American journalist who is editorial director of the AOL Huffington Post Media Group.(citing this source)" Reasoning: The current version is simply outdated, as it uses a prior title of "senior politics editor." The subject of this article is currently "editorial director" as shown here.

2. In paragraph two of the Education and early career section, remove the phrase "a practicing Jew" due to inaccuracy and unverifiability. Reasoning: The Wikipedian who wrote this sentence seems to have made an honest mistake in describing the subject as "a practicing Jew," as this is not correct (nor is it verifiable in reliable sources). They seem to have misread the source cited, jweekly.com, which states that "He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University"; however the source never actually describes Fineman as "a practicing Jew."

Thanks for your help. If any further sources are needed to justify the changes suggested above, please let me know and I'd be happy to provide those. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that an editor from the WP:HELP IRC live chat was able to make these two changes, so this request has been handled. If anyone has additional feedback on these changes, though, I am more than open to it. Thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—While it is true that the source you cite above would not seem to support a term such as "practicing Jew", it would be a source that would support that Howard Fineman is Jewish. We find at that source:

• "But Yiddishkeit and lively discussions at the dinner table ruled. 'There's a direct line from my table to 'Hardball,' Fineman notes. 'My dad was like Chris Matthews because he would both ask and answer his own questions."

• "His parents, both teachers, also taught Sunday school at the local synagogue where Fineman was bar mitzvahed. He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University.

• "While there, he earned a postgraduate fellowship, for which he undertook what he calls his 'kosher roots project. I bought a VW bus and went to Jewish places in the Old Country, then to Israel for three months. I recapitulated Jewish history.'"

• "Fineman says America has proven a uniquely hospitable home for Jews because of the nature of its founding."

• "'That, plus the innate philo-Semitism of the founders, who analogized their situation to the Jews of the Old Testament, makes the country unique.'"

I would suggest that we have support in the above source for our article to be saying that Howard Fineman is Jewish. I am saying that this edit has removed too much material insofar as it has also removed that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored that Fineman is Jewish while leaving out the term "practicing" which may not be supportable by that source. I have done that in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this so thoroughly. I submit that we take a closer look at the phrase "who is Jewish."

While WP:BLP does not cover this type of content directly, WP:BLPCAT states that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Put more briefly, religious inclusion requires both (a) self-identification, and (b) relevance (with RS) to notability.

The spirit of WP:BLP would also suggest that a living person ought to have a right to self-identify as part of a religious group. While the subject of this article attended a predominantly Jewish high school and was bar mitzvahed several decades ago, the subject has not self-identified as being Jewish, and his religion is not related to his notability.

Based on these factors, it does not seem to be fitting to speculate that the subject of this article "is Jewish." Bus stop, what are your thoughts on this? Could a few others could weigh in as well, in order to help establish consensus? Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—do you mean to say that despite the assertion supported by a reliable source that Howard Fineman was bar mitzvahed we still may not have adequate justification for saying in our article that Fineman is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the prompt response--much appreciated. Yes, that is my suggestion. As I mentioned above, I happen to work with Howard Fineman--which is why I've posed this question for the community to decide on (as I'm cognizant of WP:OWN and WP:COI, and therefore will only make grammatical/minor direct edits myself). Howard asked why the article describes him as being Jewish, given the fact that his religion is not related to his notability, and as an adult he has not self-identified as being Jewish.

I wouldn't generally suggest removing material in an article (such as controversies) simply because a subject asked to have it removed; however regarding the designation of a subject's religious beliefs, WP:BLP asks Wikipedians to exercise extra care--and thus, in the interest of information accuracy, if a living person indicates that they prefer not to be classified under a specific religion, I feel it is only appropriate to respect their desire given the personal, contentious and, for some, non-static nature of religious beliefs.

Would it be helpful if I asked Mr. Fineman to submit an OTRS ticket or something of that nature to help provide clarification? I wouldn't think that would be necessary, but if it would be of help, I'd be happy to look into doing so. Thanks to Bus stop and others for discussing this so constructively. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—the article supporting that Howard Fineman is Jewish is published in April 2008. Can you please tell me what has transpired in the intervening 4 years to cause us to reassess the applicability of this attribute vis-a-vis Howard Fineman? If I am asking something improper I hope other, more knowledgeable editors will jump in and shed the light of some policy considerations on this situation. I am in personally uncharted territory as a Wikipedian here, and I don't want to make any faux pas or worse in my line of questioning. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In the past four years, the WP:BLP standards regarding categorization have been materially changed, as I am sure you recall through discussions on this very board in which you have participated. A clear reading of the article you give allows the assertion that he was "bar mitzvahed" but not that he self-identifies (current tense) as Jewish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect—I understand your concern with verification. While I did not add the source to the article, I feel it adequately supports that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I removed the category "Jewish American writers", in case you missed my edit on that BLP. I also made the edit wherein you labelled him as Jewish to "raised in a Jewish family" as being both accurate and supportable by the source. Cheers. (this post was written while B.S. removed his comments about "categories" being not an issue here) Collect (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is helpful that several are weighing in, as this will help in establishing consensus on what is, naturally, a complex topic. "Raised in a Jewish family" seems accurate. The only question that remains is, doesn't this sentence sound a bit odd with the religious background inserted into it? It now reads:

"Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics..."

His first journalism work involved writing for this regional newspaper about state politics and the environment, but neither these subjects, nor the paper itself or his journalism career are tied to the religion of his parents.

For instance, the article about Mel Gibson mentions his religious upbringing because it is directly related to his notability (he directed a prominent film on a religious subject, Passion of the Christ). However, the article about Josh Weinstein does not mention his religious upbringing because that is not directly tied to his notability (he was a writer for The Simpsons). It would be odd to read a sentence such as 'Weinstein, who was raised in a _______ family, began writing for The Simpsons in...'

Since Howard Fineman is notable as a political journalist and this notability is not tied to his religious beliefs, what are your thoughts on revising this content to a state where it does not include the religious qualifiers? Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—why not just break into separate sentences? For instance: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman was raised in a Jewish family.[4] He began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978."

It presently reads: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978." Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Settled, I trust. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The separate sentence helps, but it is still confusing that the article mentions that he was raised in a Jewish family at all. Given that it does not have anything to do with his reason for notability, is there a reason why should it be included? Shouldn't the article follow the same conventions that the article about Josh Weinstein does, for the reasons cited above? Thanks for continuing this discussion so objectively--I appreciate the constructive responses that Bus stop and Collect have contributed. Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bedford—I think one article bears less than perfect correlation to another article. Would you agree with that, to an extent? Nevertheless let me ask you, have you encountered any source saying that the notable individual you refer to—Josh Weinstein—either is Jewish or was raised in a Jewish family? Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is biographically relevant - it's a biography, and in a complete biography we discuss things that are of note to someone's life, career, and times - who their parents were, where they were born, their siblings, spouse, and so on. If a person's cultural or religious upbringing (or, frankly, most any part of their upbringing) seems to be significant to their life story then it improves the article to give it due weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

off topic, please rethink this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot. There are two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world. The 'pro-Jewish' ones, and the 'anti-Jewish' ones. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if it told all of them them to fuck off elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While it was not initially evident, there is in fact one source, Chicago Jewish News, which discusses Weinstein's religion. That source--like jweekly.com--will always describe the religious background of the subjects of its articles. This is certainly a fine thing for these publications to do. However for Wikipedia's purposes, sources such as jweekly.com or Chicago Jewish News are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of a BLP's religion. I would suggest that since Time Magazine covered Mel Gibson's religion in this article, and he is notable for his work directing a film about religion, the inclusion of religious upbringing in the Mel Gibson Wikipedia article is appropriate. However since the only publication mentioning Josh Weinstein's religious upbringing is Chicago Jewish News, the Wikipedia article, appropriately, does not include his religious upbringing because it has not been documented in non-religion-focused reliable sources.

I actually think all of the contributors to this discussion have made solid, grounded points. On one hand, Wikipedia articles--particularly those about living people--should not just mention a person's religion unless reliable sources which do not exist solely to document religion (again, nothing wrong with this at all) have established that the BLP's religion is directly tied to their notability. However everyone sees the world differently, and I can respect why others may hold a different viewpoint.

Do others agree or disagree with the suggestion that jweekly.com is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of this living person's religion? I am open to all perspectives, and also want to reiterate that I intend for the community to have the final say on this (not I, given my WP:COI). Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article seems perfectly reliable as to the facts - he was bar mitzvah-ed, parents were sunday school teachers, went to a Jewish high school, went on some kind of self-discovery walkabout to Israel. Sounds about as Jewish as most Jewish kids in America. Keeping in mind that notability isn't a content inclusion standard, it's more a mix of weight and relevance (I try to use "noteworthiness" as a shorthand): I don't think we can categorically rule in or out an entire publication, it depends on the subject, the article in question, and what it says. Jewish publications sometimes run "Jews in the News" type columns, where mere inclusion doesn't establish notability and may not even be factually correct. On the other hand, a full-on feature article in a publication with strong editorial standards, profiling a person's relationship to their faith, culture, roots, etc., would definitely establish due significance. This one, alas, is in between. It devotes a couple paragraphs out of a several page article to describing his Jewish upbringing. If it were a general interest periodical that would be a strong sign that this is a biographically important fact. Here, because of the nature of the publication they have to tie his Jewishness in somehow or else why would they have an article? I guess the answer is that I would downplay the weight of this source but not discount it entirely. If that's the only source anyone can find, it may not be strong enough. Plus, in debatable cases we ought to take the BLP subject's own (apparently) wishes into account. Just what are they asking us to do here? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon, the way you put this makes a lot of sense. I just spoke with Howard Fineman about this and he indicated that he'd prefer the Wikipedia article about him refrain from discussing his religion or religious upbringing. He feels that since his reason for notability (as a journalist) is not related to his religious upbringing. I've informed him of WP:OWN and WP:COI, so he understands that this is a Wikipedia article about him, and not his Wikipedia article. He trusts the community of editors here to ultimately make the right decisions. Does that context help in establishing consensus on this? Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. My stake on this particular issue is slight. Any other opinions? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

White Trash

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

There is a contention over whether referring to the surnames of families in the See also section violates WP:BLP. I would argue that by including family names, the pejorative nature of the term "White Trash" is being applied to the living members of the family (the merit of which I am not arguing) and violates NPOV and OR. If a familial group or individual's name were listed under a contemporary pejorative term or racial slur, this would be a seemingly clear-cut issue. - CompliantDrone (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• - These appear to be the names objected to - The White family - The Jukes family - The Kallikak Family - Youreallycan 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • were pseudonyms used by researchers in the 1920s. The families were real but not the names, and therefore no living people are named. The White Family is real and has its own article where it is described as "The family has a reputation for anti-social behavior, and, indeed, some members of the family are quite proud of it. The family, especially Jesco, is infamous in Boone County...." It seems the BLP debate should be about THAT article. Re "poorwhite trash" and the Whites see google link to newspaper report. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• My initial question would be, why are we adding see also links from "white trash", when there's no discussion containing the term "white trash" in any of those articles?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears to be the "Kallikaks", "Jukes", and "Nams" slang names for poor families in certain parts of the U.S. that makes the association. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • because people interested in "white trash" will be interested in these heavily documents case studies of people who come close to the definition. Wikipedia does not call anyone "white trash." But scholars do, see White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies (1988) by Nicole Hahn Rafter. She portrayed the family degeneracy studies that were conducted. Also: "According to Dugdale's study, a frontiersman named Max Juke married a degenerate wife and produced an astonishingly large line of “white trash." [from Willie V. Bryan (2010). Sociopolitical Aspects of Disabilities: The Social Perspectives and Political History of Disabilities and Rehabilitation in the United States. Charles C Thomas. p. 55.] Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That seems a defensible arguement for Jukes & Kallikak. I'd personally prefer seeing something in prose, but that's just my offhand opinion. In "The Whites", that google search link is problematic. It's showing a lot of results for "the white family" not The White Family". I'm less comfortable with that one at the moment. Just my two cents.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree on both points. Prose explanation beats listing in "see also" hands down. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I realize that Juke, Kallikak, Nams, Zero, etc. were psuedonymous surnames used by budding eugenecists, and if refs can be found I think that they should be mentioned in the body. My primary problem, is that placing a link to the The White Family (a real surname, with living people in it, not all of whom are impoverished drug-addicted Appalachians) in the See also section next to these "fictitious" names potentially violates WP:BLP. Especially with the eugenics implications. I'm not arguing the validity of whether the White Family as portrayed in the The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia are "white trash", I'm arguing about whether they should be mentioned in passing along with research subjects from the early 19th century who were later used to justify compulsory sterilization, racial hygiene, etc. I'm also concerned about a lot of unilateral editing, ownership issues and a disinterest in consensus which seem readily apparent when one peruses recent edits. - CompliantDrone (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have prodded The White family for deletion, as most of the material in the article is forked at Jesco White and The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional BLP overspill

Amber L. Hollibaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This weakly cited low notable person has has now had a biography created to support a disputed content addition about her in the White trash article - Youreallycan

The user / creator of the BLP is now removing my templates and reverting my edits as bad faith - diff - Youreallycan 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

editors can read the article on Amber L. Hollibaugh and note that it is fully sourced to multiple scholarly sources, such as her books and journal articles from Duke & MIT, as well as numerous scholarly cites about her career from American Quarterly and other prestigious journals. Youreallycan has made no comments whatever on the talk page but has tried to damage and degrade the article. That's vandalism, as well as a personal attack on me (saying that I have a "conflict of interest") -- that is false and deliberately malicious. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp is an activist with the British National Party, Britain's often-controversial far right political party. This article has a long and chequered history, with three separate appearances on this noticeboard (1, 2 and 3) and three AfDs, the latest of which I just closed as no consensus.

I am posting this here for the reasons listed in the AfD closing: to give BLPN regulars a chance to look again and reconsider whether or not the article is complying with BLP, whether it is a COATRACK, and whether there are any other BLP-related issues with the article that need considering. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that was a delete outcome at AFD - Which comments/votes have you discounted ? - do you mind if I ask another admin for a review? - Ah I see now - removing the spi accounts there is no real discussion - sheesh - hes not very notable and coatrack is a bit of an issue - As per this comment, "It will probably not be very good ever because people only edit it to push one agenda or the other. There is no interest in telling his story to inform readers. But that is life on WP". Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 - Deletion is my position for that reason. Youreallycan 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Alexandra Tigchelaar

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

Half of this aricle is made up of an episode regarding advice on bestiality. Seems to be undue weight. 68.171.231.82 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes its undue weight in my opinion, but what is even more disturbing is that the entire section is supported by 6 citations that consist of various editions of the subjects advice column and letters to the subject by readers of her columns. There is no outside, third party report on this "controversy". So the entire "controversy" is self generated, non notable, Original Research in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Undue weight, BLP implications, OR, several ways to approach describing the problem but it's a problem in any framing. I've removed the paragraph in question.. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Keith and Joe for your assistance. I've learned a lot editing this piece. Question: I'm new to this, so I'm unsure. Is this page notable enough to warent a BLP page given that the Now and Eye contributor mentions would normally be merged in the Now and eye weekly wiki pages and the only other piece of information about her is cited with an article promoting her show? --jojopsychicpower —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Nader

Need advice on what to do with this sentence (below) currently in the Career section of the article and which was characterized by a peer reviewer as "coming completely out of the blue":

• In April 2000, Nader, as president of Maharishi University of Management (Holland), issued a statement to celebrate "the dawn of a New World Order of Peace, as demonstrated by the invincibility of President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the freedom of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Divine Rulership of President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, and the casting off of corrupt democracy by President Robert Guei of the Ivory Coast". [bold added by me for emphasis]

There are three citations given:

• An 1100 word newswire service, press release entitled: "Maharishi University Of Management, Holland, Celebrates The Dawn Of A New World Order Of Peace -- The Rise Of Perfection In World Politics And Economy, April 6, 2000, [1] which lists the subjects name, Tony Nader at the bottom, indicating that he was the author of the press release about his employer and its views on politics etc.
• A reprint of the same press release cited above: Asianet Summary For Thursday, April 6, 2000, AsiaPulse News AsiaNet, a press release distribution service
• A book by a Yale architect professor, named Keller Easterling (2005) cites the quote but appears to attribute the quote to the Maharishi not the BLP subject. Tony Nader is not mentioned, in reference to the quote. (see page 88) In the book's footnotes on page 212 it cites the quote as being from this now dead, Maharishi URL: [2] To see the book click here (but you need to sign in to Amazon to view the page)

If we want to use primary sources for the article there are lots of others primary sources [3][4] [5][6][7] [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] So.... should the current quote be removed? Or should additional quotes from other primary sources (such as his books etc) be added to create balance? I need some advice on how to handle this. Thanking you in advance for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would remove the quote because it has no real secondary coverage. BTW, what is it relevant to, actually? As an aside it's missing a quotation mark at the end.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The text was added in block quote format, for emphasis, by a now banned editor. [16] I'm not sure what he/she had in mind, as it has no relevance or notability in the subjects life. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael de la Force

Michael de la Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of dubious notability, without reliable sources. Multiple accounts working on this, with several acting as WP:SPAs, and an IP persistently removing maintenance tags. Would appreciate other eyes on this, perhaps for AFD if the PROD is removed. Thanks, 99.153.142.225 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• You can actually do all three steps of the AFD nomination yourself, if that is what you want to do. Simply create the article discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force, since you can create pages in talk namespaces, and get an editor with an account to rename it into the project namespace. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've returned to my desk to see someone else has done it. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force. Dru of Id (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I've also started a thread at ANI [17]. An apparent, if confused advocate for the article (voted delete, but is impugning motives of those who argue for deletion) is comparing the AFD process to a famous Wikipedia libel suit, and is making accusations of character assassination. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ross Porter

Ross Porter (sportscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is Ross Porter.

You need to make several edits on my biography.

My broadcasting career started when I was 14 years old, not 15.

The 22-inning solo broadcast occurred on August 23, 1989 in Montreal and not in Houston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.109.24 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you taking the time to do some research on Wikipedia and discover that this is the correct place to bring your concerns if you are the subject of a WP article. Unfortunately we need secondary sources for this information. Anyone can post here saying they are the subject of an article and telling us to correct info. So for you protection and the accuracy of WP we require outside sources. If you know of any news or magazine articles, web site bios etc that give the correct information, please let us know, so we can accurately reflect those sources. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP has an article on the game 1989 Montreal Expos season... [18] appears to be RS for the facts. [19] also shows the game was at Montreal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sinitta

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

This person is a UK Celebrity - best know for being an 80's singer and an ex-girlfriend of Simon Cowell. There has been a long running dispute on Wikipedia that has turned into an edit war regarding her birthdate. Her official birthdate ( as mentioned on her official website at http://www.sinitta.com/?page_id=125 ) is October 19th 1968. However users have claimed that this is a stage age and her actual year of birth is 1966 - but there is no proof, reference or evidence for this whatsoever. I feel that with lack of any other proof from official sources Wiki should use the 1968 date she herself states, and a section in the article detailing the other claims is sufficient - which is how it is currently now. However it is always getting changed back to 1966. Can we get an official Wiki resolution on this or perhaps a lock on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.194.49 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems even the BBC is cribbing our article [20], so it may be impossible to find an independent reliable source, and blogs comment on the discrepancy. Dru of Id (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC uses the lead from music articles en masse in the "/music" section of the site. Nothing to worry about, things like the News site are editorially unconnected to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and the BBC have the 1966 birthdate with the source credited as Wikipedia. Yet she herself says officially its 1968. So it doesn't look good on Wikipedia to be putting out a different date. My thinking on it is that probably 99% of celebrities pages on Wikipedia have got birthdate information from a celebrities official site or PR, so however wild the claim (as long as the irregularity is documented in the article, as it is) the one that she says herself should be the one in the header and info box on wiki. 81.105.194.49 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on the article Frank L. VanderSloot for a while, and a disagreement about how to describe his company Melaleuca, Inc has arisen. The company itself is very insistent that it does not use Multilevel marketing. Many news articles ([21][22][23]) describe it as such, although not all of them actually use that term. I don't feel like it would be appropriate to obscure the company's business practices, but the term has a lot of bad baggage, also. A couple of editors have been replacing the term, using as refs promotional sites and Youtube clips. Since it's a BLP I'm not sure how acceptable that is. I would appreciate the input of a few experienced editors.Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Main problem was polemics linking him to pedophiles etc. by association with the Boy Scouts, etc. using sources insufficient for such claims in a WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these sources [24] and [25] are unreliable at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Highly reliable. Why is there a whitewash going on here? Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitewash?

The claim was:

VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a campaign that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America, in which he purchased a full-page advertisement in a local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story

Which quite seems to link Vandersloot to "Mormon pedophiles working ... as part of the Boy Scouts of America" which seems to my simple mind to be a contentious claim. Your mileage may vary. Thus the sources must be strong indeed. What are the sources? [26] a report by the newspaper which seeks to promote its own editorial position "by exposing Boy Scout pedophiles and those who failed to kick them out of the scouting program" which seems to be per se a less-than-neutral editorial commentary. Vandersloot is not claimed in that article to be supporting "Mormon pedophiles" hence the source is improperly used. His ad purportedly outed the journalist as not being unbiased in his reportage. In fact the article then turns on the writer's own "boss":

Religion, "big" money, and the conservative movement's rabid protection of local scout leaders had gotten to our boss.

In short - the rambling article about the newspaper is insufficient for the contentious claim made.

Now as to the Salon piece, from Glenn Greenwald , is likely an "editorial opinion" and not a fact on which to base a contentious claim about Vandersloot supporting "Mormon pediohiles"

VanderSloot’s chronic bullying threats to bring patently frivolous lawsuits against his political critics — magazines, journalists, and bloggers — that makes him particularly pernicious and worthy of more attention .

Now is it clear that contentious claims must have strong sourcing, and that sconnecting anyone to "Mormon pediphiles" is, indeed, a contentious claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder which element of this sentence is in doubt. Is it

• The fact that he purchased a full-page ad discussing the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story?
• The nature of the campaign that journalist had embarked upon? or
• The fact that he has been criticized for this?

They may be contentious claims, but the sources are strong indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, these are not strong sources. What we have is a local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:

• In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The following edit:

Vandersloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America

Was reverted with the edit summary: that's not NPOV wording [27]. I suggest that it is, in fact, NPOV wording, and the sourcing is not sufficient in a BLP for the linking of "Mormon pedophiles" to VanderSloot . Might others consider NPOV wording where the source does appear to be problematic at best? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely problematic about [28]. VanderSloot responded to a series on Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America by purchasing full-page advertisements in the investigating local paper criticizing the coverage and discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story. This is a verifiable statement. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Lauryn Hill

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

Lauryn Hill (Singer) was born on May 26, 1975. Many news reports, articles, etc erroneously list her birthday as May 25. Her correct birthday was listed after a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1tOfw1nbAc) was posted of Ms. Lauryn Hill CLEARLY stating her birthday as May 26. It has since been changed back to May 25, with the editor citing Rolling Stone magazine as their source. Once again, the media has their facts wrong about Ms. Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.82.254 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube video, although funny, is hardly a reliable source. Almost unviewable it's so dark. However, May 26 is correct per the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia. The IP who changed it to the 25th before you had no basis for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sondra Locke

birth year

There is a months old discussion about the birth year. 1944 or 1947. Both years are included in the article while they discuss it. I removed both until consensus is reached. An edit war is happening now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BLP_issue. Both years are solidly sourced and there is no indication the information is contentious (other than Canoe1967's concern). Canoe1967 seems to feel we must "prove" one date is "right". Consensus on the article's talk page is that both well-sourced dates satisfy BLP sourcing requirements. (Similar issues have been addressed in other articles by citing both dates. A decision against that method would, obviously, require us to revisit those issues (Michelle Thomas, Audrey Tautou, Sharon Leal, etc... What, no guys arguing their ages? @#$%ing youth obsessed culture).) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• They may be well sourced but one is wrong. It would be the same as saying she was born in either Kansas or New York. If we can't decide on which is correct, then neither should be included. It just makes us look like we either can't do research or we can't decide which research is more correct. We can't create facts on a BLP. --Canoe1967 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem there: it's Wikipedia policy that we don't do research of this nature, not something we should feel embarrassed about. If one source is clearly unreliable then leave it out, but when there's no clear winner just report the disagreement and let readers make informed decisions about how they'll use that information. (It might actually be useful for a reader to know that sources do disagree.)

SummerPhD, if it helps, Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has the same issue. Jones (via Who's Who) gives his year of birth at 1943, but a biographer has suggested that the real year is more likely 1941. --GenericBob (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Now it's limited to actresses who aren't in their 20s anymore and a broadcaster in his 70s. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going since 2009. Two sources are a marriage certificate and a high school grad year. I think both of those match so they should have reached consensus on that date years ago. Discounting typos, books, and news stories that may have all used the same typo source should have been figured out on day one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources cited in the article are ABC News and two published biographies. The primary sources are of no use to us. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't believe how lazy some people are. I have now sent 5 emails. The ABC news is just a feed from API. They have since emailed me back with the email for API to verify their facts. I have emailed them as well as the publisher of one book, the MSN website, and Rovi. I can't believe this wasn't done over three years ago. Finding bullshit on the net, pasting a reference and moving on is not research. It just adds to more bullshit on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • • I agree with GenericBob in that we just reflect reliable sources even if they are in disagreement. Emailing the sources is OK if it leads to a separate published source but private emails between WP editors and other persons (regardless of whether they are NBC employees etc) are not a basis for content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

age and other article problems

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

Article contains the unsourced statement "Locke, who was in her early 20s at the time, deceived the producers by stating that she was 17 and bound her breasts to be convincing for the role". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the disputed and contentious - and added a uncited template to the whole section - Youreallycan 20:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the deceived and breasts bound claims would be a stretch, the NYT can verify that the producers believed she was 17. [29] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above: there is a blocked user who has made an appeal to ArbCom to be unblocked, which we have declined, but he is concerned about several BLPs - [30]. The above article was one, the others are Anne Heche, Natalie Wood, Catherine Deneuve, and Ann-Margret. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Process oriented psychology article

I have reverted several recent edits to the Process oriented psychology article by User:NotMindell, an apparently new SPA user who appears to be wanting to edit the article in a non-neutral manner in order to discredit Arnold Mindell, the founder of this psychotherapy school. The user name of "NotMindell" and the comments on his own talk page suggest that he or she has a personal agenda against Arnold Mindell. I would appreciate it if some administrators and other experienced editors could keep a watch on this article for BLP and other policy problems as I think an edit war is a strong possibility. If I should have posted this message on another page I will appreciate knowing. Thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is in very poor shape. It lacks sourcing for large swaths of material, and that lack of sourcing has been tagged for a long time. A lot of the sourcing it does have comes from Mindell. Having an article about a theory by a particular person that is sourced almost exclusively to that person is untenable. It has to have secondary sourcing as to what it is and that it is notable. Unless you have a compelling reason not to, I'm inclined to remove all of the unsourced material and much of the self-serving primarily sourced material. I have no comment about NotMindell except that the name violates WP:USERNAME, specifically WP:REALNAME, and I've advised him of that problem on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article has numerous policy problems and that much of it needs removing or appropriate referencing. My principal concern, however, is that "NotMindell" and others may continue to add critical personal commentary in a non-neutral manner. Thanks for any help you can offer in keeping the article in line with WP's policies. Afterwriting (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist, partly to remind myself to pare the article, and partly to watch for inappropriate changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Nader (cont)

My post above on the Tony Nader BLP seems to have been passed over without anyone making a comment. If anyone has time to give their opinion or insights, it would be greatly appreciated. here is a link to the thread above Thanks muchly, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I know what it's like to go to all the work you did to set up your question and then have no one respond. Frustrating. So, in sympathy with your plight, I've responded above. Not what I'd call an in-depth response, but still.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and for taking the time to contribute. Let's see if any others wish to chime in. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

engelbert humperdink

page has been vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.202.192 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalised 8 May and reverted the same minute; you're just seeing an old version. Dru of Id (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Alex Beard

Please amend the statement about Alex Beard's mother, Patricia Beard. It now reads "Patricia Beard 'was an author..." I am Patricia Beard and I am 1. alive; and 2. continue to be an author, with eight published non-fiction books (three of which were published by HarperCollins), and a novel to be published by Simon & Schuster for summer 2013. I would appreciate your amending the mention in my son's biography! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.9.205 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed with RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Here we go again, with the addition of information about Warren's possible or supposed ancestry (she was in the news). I've already asked for full protection. What's being added is totally UNDUE--note also a bogus proposal/discussion on the talk page in which a couple of jokers are trying to game the system. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Elainee

Pop ephemera fails notability & artist, constructed from press releases, non wp:RS & download listings. Already declined speedy A7, could an editor w/account review & AFD? PS article creator seems to have been on a tear of adding dubious vr-zone refspam & other promotional(?) editing...deserves closer attention, perhaps? regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was a piece of poorly sourced fluff created by an editor with a history of deletions, many speedy.

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

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any relationship with this editor who has 2 articles (Porscia Yeganeh and Kevin Ou) being considered as non-notable or for deletion [31] or this person with 17 accounts? [32] Or am I just being paranoid?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrence Deacon

It is having issues brought up by what may be a COI IP editor at the help desk. See talk page as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Townsend Bell

It is reported that racing's Townsend Bell is married to Heather Campbell. He is married to an actress named Heather Campbell, but the writer connected the name to the wrong actress. When you hit Heather Campbell's name, you are taken to a page about Heather Anne Campbell (a comedian and writer). This is not his wife. I know this family and I thought it was strange that this mistake was made so, I wanted to submit the correct information.

The correct Heather Campbell is:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0132504/

sweetypie1181 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.165.194 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted text from this post. It seems someone has removed the wikilink on the BLP page already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have unlinked the name. An article will have to be created for the other Heather Campbell but I'm having trouble finding sources besides IMDB. P.S. Please don't copy-paste entire webpages here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the redirect to Heather Anne Campbell with a stub about this Heather Campbell, including a link to this IMDB page. Is it ok? filceolaire (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We may need to put the 3 name one at the top of the two name page. A search for Heather Campbell only shows the actress page that I just re-named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And has now been AFDed. The full WP cycle. filceolaire (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Quayle

gaffes

This article has a WP:UNDUE discussion of his gaffes. I can understand bringing them up, but they should not dominate the Vice Presidency section as they do now. My attempts to discuss this in talk have gone pretty much nowhere. Here is a diff: [33] William Jockusch (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I see in your comments at both the Quayle and Obama talk pages that you are trying to draw a "if article A mentions X, then Article B must mention X as well" comparison but that's not how the world works. Dan Quayle's gaffes have received a depth and breath of coverage over many, many years, while what you try to paint as "Obama gaffes" were minor events covered by a handful of sources at the time it happened, then a quick fade to obscurity. Ask the average American about "Dan Quayle and the potato/e incident" and you will get plenty of responses. Try "Obama and TOTUS" and apart from Rush Limbaugh listeners, you'll get blank stares. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I created Political gaffes. We may wish to expand it before deletion. If all gaffes are in one place for comparision it may balance articles of BLPs better. Did I open another can of worms?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

tagged

Dan Quayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has just tagged the section on his vice presidentcy as having undue weight on this gaffes and suggested there are BLP violations. On the talk page he says "As such the VP section is largely a BLP violation presenting undue weight on his misstatements." Outside input would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As the section is written, eg, "His most famous blunder occurred...." it can stand the template - section needs work - imo Youreallycan 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the section in issue and can see why the question could be raised. However, then I went to Google books and entered "Dan Quayle gaffes" and quite a few books about the gaffes and the term they engendered "Quaylespeak" turned up. I checked WP:NPOV/WEIGHT again. Per the relevant sentences:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

The reliable secondary source coverage of the topic does not appear isolated and the discussion in the article might not be disproportionate imo but still, it might be more appropriate to present the topic in a more summary form in this article.Coaster92 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg Jewish?

Discussion. Influential Jew, marriage commentary, RS?. The question is whether or not enough evidence exists supporting Zuckerberg being included as an American Jew as categories or Jewish as ethnicity in the infobox. Some editors invoke BLPCAT. Thoughts? Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that Wikifan come here as the consensus at the Talk page seems to be running against his position. It's very long thread on the Talk page, although there is a fair amount of repetition of people's views. I'll quickly summarize some of it, hopefully, fairly. I think everyone agrees that Zuckerberg was born to Jewish parents and raised Jewish. Everyone also agrees that he self-identifies as an atheist. I believe, although not as certainly, that everyone agrees that he has not self-identified as a Jew, either from a religious or cultural (what Wikipedians often call ethnic) standpoint. All of this, except the last point (as it's an absence of something), is articulated in the body of the article. The question is pretty much as Wikifan states it above. Part of the problem - and this is nothing new - comes from the ambiguity in our own policies and categories about Jews, as well as the fact that Jews are not monolithic in their belief systems. Some identify as Jewish by religion, and some identify as Jewish by culture and heritage. And, of course, some identify as Jewish by all of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly he's a person of Jewish descent - that is the WP:BLP. take care as to reporting as if fact about living people - position simple really- move along, - Bbb23 is right, our Jew issues categories in this sector are vague/disruptive (disruptive as we have many unresolved and unsatisfactory discussions/outcomes that need clarifying, especially about living people but not solely) - If users want to add that someone is a mother line Jew then the cat should clearly state that - Matriarchal Jew - Youreallycan 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with this redline of "self-identified" as a Jew. I guess it could be inferred since he was raised Jews, and had a bar mitzvah. It seems pretty excessive to expect individuals to go out and say, verbatim - "I'm a Jew" when a laundry list of reliable sources explicitly identify Zuckerberg as a Jew. Not of "Jewish descent." I do not believe blpcat applies because this is ethnicity, not religion. Do we expect individuals to self-identify as African Americans or Native Americans? I hope to see uninvolved, third party weigh in on this discussion because it could have serious ramifications for other Jewish BLPs that possess half the sources supporting Zuckerberg's status as a Jew. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the specific WP:BLP issue that vague comments fail to mention or differentiate the connection between ethnicity and religion. - Youreallycan 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside Wikipedia policy for the moment and approaching this as a commonsense matter, the article body does a good job of explaining who Zuckerberg is from a religious/cultural perspective. The infobox and cats would destroy that good work and label him in a misleading fashion. Wikifan believes (I think) that Zuckerberg inherits his Jewish characteristics, whatever they might be, from his parents. I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew. Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How would it be misleading? Plenty of info on Jewish "genes" - Genetic studies on Jews. "I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew." This kind of thinking is problematic as editors should only contribute based on policy and sources. If Zuckerberg's parents are Jewish, and he was raised Jewish, and he is described as one of the world's most influential Jews by an RS, there shouldn't be any serious disagreement as to whether or not Zuckerberg is Jewish. Jewishness is an ethnicity, as are Native Americans and African-Americans. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do hope we get an answer to the question, how would it be misleading. I think we've got a case here that suggests that the approach some people have been taking to this issue is not so convincing. For one thing, it means that whether someone is identified here as Jewish is a question being addressed in ways different from that used for other ethnicities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We will never get an answer on this. We never have before. Why should now be different? I believe there is a difference between having certain genetic characteristics (like the cases cited by Wikifan) and identifying with a culture or a heritage, and the WP article pointed to by Wikifan about Jews and genes is hardly conclusive; most of those kinds of articles are not. I also don't want to get into a discussion about African-Americans and what exactly that means to different people because that would really create a messy tangential argument. I've stated, rather succinctly I believe, why it is misleading in Zuckerberg's case, and I don't want to open this up to a global discussion. That belongs in another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The question ("How would it be misleading") was posed by Wikifan in relation to Zuckerburg. You have asserted that editing the infobox and cats in the way Wikifan proposes would be misleading, but you haven't indicated how it would be misleading -- hence the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The infobox would be misleading because it makes it sound like Zuckerberg is an ethnic Jew when there's no evidence he is (remember, I don't accept that cultural Judaism is inherited), and the cat would be even more misleading as it makes no distinction religious and cultural Jews, but, even if it means "or", it would be misleading in the same way the infobox would be. Everything flows from the initial premises, and Wikifan and I disagree on the premises.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Errm do you have a different definition of "ethnic"from me - I always believed it was (and quoting our article) "a group of people who [...] identify with each other through a common heritage, consisting of a common culture" So how can you differentiate cultural when cultural is the key element of ethnic? I assume you are looking for biological or something similar - for those cases the "of Jewish Descent" category is more appropriate but it's not the case for Zuckerberg who you seem to admit was raised culturally Jewish before choosing Atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of Wikipedia, I accept our definition. My point is that there is no evidence that Zuckerberg identifies with the Jewish culture.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in BLPCAT requiring self-identification with ethnicity/culture. The available sources on the matter are quite clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While I've mostly stayed out of this issue, I have to say, for the record, both Newsweek ("Ashkenazi Jews are one of the most coherent genetic groups that exist") and The New York Times ("The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population") and every other scholarly source support Jews being an ethnic group (or a "genetic" group, as Bbb23 says). I also am beginning to view Bbb23 as highly disruptive. Previously, he stated that people shouldn't be categorized as "Jewish" per "BLPcat" because the category does not differentiate between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity. Now, his opinion has shifted further towards whichever direction, in that people can't be described as being "ethnically" Jewish either! (because your ethnicity is not inherited from your parents? I hate to break it to you, but your parents are the only ones who transmit your ethnicity to you. There is no other way to become a member of an ethnic group. That's kind of how it works. "Identifying" with this culture or that does not make you a member of an ethnicity, nor does not identifying with it make you a non-member. Hence the term "ethnically Jewish" and not "culturally Jewish", two different things). Now, I don't know if Bbb23 is my fifth cousin or not, but he doesn't seem to understand the issues here; in fact, more and more so with every passing year since his position is more extreme now than it was a year ago. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, remarkably constructive, AHW. As far as I know, my position on these issues is just as "highly disruptive" as it was before. The only thing that's "changed" is my promise to myself not to let myself get sucked in too deeply to these discussions. I've broken that promise, unfortunately. Zuckerberg will no doubt survive whatever consensus is reached, although I seriously doubt there will be one.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's more extreme. Given that Zuckerberg had "Ethnicity:Jewish" in his infobox for a long time (which I found a little strange, but ok) and you seemed to have no problem with it until now. I proposed this as a compromise between the two feuding sides on this issue - but you reverted it out of the article, even though you said that, even in your opinion, it didn't violate BLPcat. Now, if you hadn't reverted it, the discussion would have been over, since most editors seemed satisfied with that idea. Therefore, I think it's fair to view your actions as disruptive, and yourself by extension. Wikipedia has gotten more extreme on this issue in general. I remember when I was starting out, people were having debates about whether to describe people born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers as Jewish, and storylines of that sort. I can't recall any debates about whether people born to two Jewish parents, and who do not practice a faith other than Judaism, can be described as Jewish. That seemed, understandably, a given. Now, such debates are commonplace, thanks in part to you (but not exclusively to you). What a strange shift, and how wasteful to time, energy, and common sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're forcing me to do a lot of work looking back at the history of the Zuckerberg article. In spot-checking the last 6 months, you are correct that Jewish ethnicity was in the infobox. The Jewish-related cats have undergone many shifts, but I didn't check who did what when (except see below). As for removal of Jewish ethnicity from the infobox after the period of "stability", that was not done by me. It was done by another editor on May 10 here. Without laboriously looking at the complete history, what triggered the tortured discussion on the Zuckerberg Talk page happened many days later when Wikifan added the Jewish cat (not the ethnicity), and I did in fact revert. That discussion then expanded into the ethnicity issue, causing me to focus on it again. How you can call any of this "highly disruptive" on my part is beyond me, but whatever, you've said in the past we almost never agree on anything, so it shouldn't surprise me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you didn't remove the ethnicity thing in early May. That was someone else. But you removed it twice now, even though my strong sense was that it would have neutralized the discussion (Wikifan seemed pleased with it, for one). We almost never agree on anything? Well, we did agree on something in August 2010, when your opinion on this "issue" seemed rational and fact-based. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've removed it since because of the discussion, but I don't think my views have changed, although they may have refined a bit as I've learned more about Wikipedia's rules. As for the Goldwyn discussion, that was about cats, not about ethnicity in the infobox. As for not agreeing, it's something I vaguely recall your saying a long time ago when we butted heads over something. I ain't looking for it as it's really not all that important. I just wish you'd stick to substance without resorting to characterizing my conduct, but you're not the only editor who does this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your personal views on this issue are relevant, since you keep citing them ("Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene"). I cite Newsweek and The New York Times, and you cite... yourself. There is a difference. Are we talking about the infobox now or the categories? If it's the infobox, why are we here, considering you admitted that even under your own interpretation of it, BLPcat wouldn't effect "Ethnicity" in infobox. My main point is that if you hadn't reverted the compromise addition, the discussion would have likely already ended, since Wikifan seemed satisfied with the compromise and you hadn't touched that part of the infobox either, previously. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "main point" got a bit lost in your attack on me. Your point about personal views is too complicated for me to respond to, or at least I don't have the energy or the will. I've said everything I have to say here and on the Zuckerberg Talk page. Consensus will be reached or it won't. The article will be whatever the last edit to it is, even in the absence of consensus. Whatever happens, this won't be the last time the subject comes up for this article or for others. I'm going to very belatedly keep my promise to myself and suck myself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you really mean that last part, then that's something else we can both jointly endorse. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, so we're agreed that Zuckerberg can include an American Jew/Jewish atheist cat or Jewish as ethnicity? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedway bombings

This article has been newly created after a campaign by a right-wing US blogger, at http://patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed/. Although not strictly a BLP, the article deals almost exclusively with one man, Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin has had articles on Wikipedia before, all of which have been deleted due to BLP issues. This new article is being rapidly added to by a variety of new editors, and I'm keen to ensure that it stays neutral: but I don't know enough about the case to accurately judge whether or not it's neutral. Would appreciate more eyes! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple

The "Cheerleading" category used for multiple politicians was deleted at TfD. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_19

Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Spelling, and the Bush family, among others, will have to make do with the dozens of other categories they are in

I removed the cheerleading trivia from several BLPs etc. Another editor restored them - including some really, really absurd examples.

Pages include all the Bushes, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan etc. And dead people such as Prescott Bush and Dwight Eisenhower.

I consider this simply an extension of "silly season" since the "fact" that someone was a "cheerleader" is not of any biographical value as a rul;e, any more than we should list people who once owned red Chevys. Might others exampe those edits and opine? Collect (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you also remove all mentions of their other extra-curricular activities, such as baseball, football, basketball, chess, debate, drama, etcetera? — GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, the "cheerleading" stuff is not as well sourced as, say, being a major football star. Strange? The entire category in which all of these "famous cheerleaders" was placed was deleted -- does that suggest how weighty such "facts" are to anyone? I think I may add "owners of red Chevys" as a category if this is deemed a serious topic that has to be covered in biographies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing all of the trivia from Wikipedia articles would be a full-time job. Would you like the assignment? Just think of how much fun it would be when you were attacked for removing facts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

There is a Straw poll taking place at Mitt Romney to determine consensus in regard to the question of inclusion of the Cranbrook hair-cutting incident recently reported by the Washington Post. Any input from editors would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Clavier

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

This has been here before (see here) but the problems remain. A great deal of the content here seems to have been added by a representative of a parish caught up in a dispute/vendetta with Clavier, and the only citations are a news article behind a paywall and a court document from an opposing party. From what I can tell the center of the mess is that (a) there is a tremendous bit of bad blood between various continuing factions, and (b) there are allegations that Clavier didn't bother to respond to and which therefore hang around to be cited indefinitely as if they were proven. I'm not sure there would be anything left if I removed the problematic sources and unreffed material. Mangoe (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source at talk:ALEC

Is it a BLP violation to challenge the reliability of a source by claiming that it is self published, as done here: [34]? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The person clearly marks it as self-published. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg

Resolved

 – Talk page semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Have requested page protection, coming here as well in hopes of getting administrative attention. Persistent trolling/vandalism by multiple accounts. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where we fail miserably--the endurance of BLP violations and graffiti. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dale Farm#Who Is Grattan Puxon ?

I think Talk:Dale Farm#Who Is Grattan Puxon ? is problematic. However, I have (and am proud to have) a clear conflict of interest on this topic, so I thought I'd better bring it here. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Listing Amber Heard in Category:Bisexual actors

I'd visited this article before, when it used to identify Heard as a lesbian. It now doesn't identify her sexual orientation in the text, but it does by listing her in the bisexual category. It does this despite the fact that Amber Heard doesn't publicly identify as lesbian or bisexual and makes it clear that she publicly rejects these labels, which means that Wikipedia identifying her as either is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. This was brought up on the talk page and most agree that we shouldn't be labeling her if she doesn't label herself. See Talk:Amber Heard#Sexuality and Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual label. This is not like labeling someone a "race"/ethnicity, seeing as that is more of a solid listing while sexuality and therefore applying a sexual orientation is more complicated. As was mentioned on the talk page, plenty of gay men and lesbians have had sex and/or romantic relationships with the opposite sex (in fact, most have) and it doesn't make those gay men and lesbians bisexual.

I decided to bring this issue here for a final say-so on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, but I was shot down on the the Amber Heard talk page. Asarelah (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would personally support putting her into the LGBT categories, but not specifically labeling her lesbian or bi. She came out at a GLAAD event, she clearly doesn't consider herself straight. Asarelah (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that category meet WP:BLPCAT? I think it states the category has to have certain criteria in order to add it and her article doesn't. Category:Former LGBT would be the better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life" - quote from WP:BLPCAT.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is unequivocal: if the person has not self-identified in a way that justifies the category, then it should come out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at the talk page: Canoe1967, no, we don't have sexuality categories like that (also, most people don't truly change sexual orientation; it's rather that they change sexual identity). Further, Heard is a part of the LGBT community, as she even states in her interviews. See this one, where it was first revealed that she is a part of LGBT. It's just that she doesn't specify whether she is lesbian or bisexual. So I would say that she should stay in these categories you removed her from, although I of course agree with you removing her from the bisexual category since her sexual orientation is not specified by her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That interview certainly does justify something in the area of LGBT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not important what label Heard thinks she belongs in (she says she doesn't like to label herself). What matter is whether she's self-identified in a way that permits us to label her. In 2010, she said she was a lesbian. In 2011, she said she sleeps with both sexes. It strikes me that she could therefore fit into a LGBT or a bisexual cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, it's unclear as to whether she truly came out as a lesbian or whether it was just assumed that she identified as a lesbian. And she never stated that she still has sex with both sexes. She stated that she has dated both. But, like I stated, so have many gay men and lesbians. Most gay men and lesbians have had sexual interaction with the opposite sex before coming out as gay or lesbian. That's very commonplace due to our heteronormative society. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, she came out as a lesbian if one accepts the sources. It's about as clear as it can be. And she didn't say "dated" - she said "successful relationships" - again, clear enough. You just wanted to use the word "heteronormative" in a sentence. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I have to state no, we cannot state that "she came out as a lesbian, if one accepts the sources." This is because at no point in those sources...did she state that she is a lesbian. Articles titling her lesbian do not make her lesbian, unless it is clear that she identifies that way. Again, in those sources, there is no point where she specifies her sexual orientation, which is why this debate even exists. It's why posters on those sites were still asking if she is lesbian or bisexual. She was ambiguous in that 2010 AfterEllen.com source about what her sexual orientation is. So your belief that it's clear based on articles titling her lesbian is not valid. Despite the fact that she stated that she doesn't identify under these labels (not publicly at least), there are also sources calling her bisexual based on her statement about rejecting labels, having had successful relationships with men and women, and loving who she loves. So saying that she is bisexual is obviously speculation on the part of the authors, unless Heard herself states that she is bisexual or gives us something unambiguous showing that to be the case, along with showing that she accepts the label. Having had successful relationships with both men and women equates to dating in this respect (which can also include romance and sex); what it does not necessarily equate to is "bisexual." There are gay men who have stated that they had happy romantic lives with their girlfriends or wives (romantic, as in separate from sexual happiness). What is "successful" to you isn't always going to mean successful to others. Plenty would argue that any romantic relationship that doesn't last isn't successful. We go by WP:Verifiability here, but an author of an article declaring that someone is lesbian or bisexual does not trump what that someone -- the person they are speaking of -- actually says about his or her own sexual orientation. What Heard has stated is just as verifiable as what these authors have stated. That is what is clear. And, yes, maybe I did want to use "heteronormative" in a sentence, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." From BLP CAT. She has indentified as not being in the categories so they should not be re-added. They are also not relevant to her public life or notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• She has identified as being a lesbian and being bisexual - she doesn't have to use the word "bisexual" to identify as such. As for the relevance to her public life or notability, she attended the GLAAD event and that's probably more than we usually have to satisfy that prong (in practice, for better or for worse, it's almost always ignored).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated before, it's not clear if she publicly ever identified as either. You won't find a reliable source where she identifies either. What you will find are authors of articles titling her lesbian or bisexual.

And, Canoe1967, I know what WP:BLPCAT states. But I am saying that Heard rejecting specific sexual orientation labels does not make her not a part of the LGBT community. She came out as part of the LGBT community in 2010, as the source I provided shows, and she has not retracted on that. The fact is...she came out as part of the LGBT community while never specifically stating whether she is bisexual or lesbian. If she did specify as lesbian at that GLAAD event, as sources say she did, she soon only referred to herself as "coming out." This is why Asarelah, Siawase (see here) and myself have stated that it is fine to put her in the LGBT category. She also considers herself a LGBT role model, someone who can help LGBT visibility, which makes her sexual orientation relevant to her public life. I'm not going to press hard to have her in the LGBT category, however. I'm just letting you know why I believe that she fits in that one with regard to WP:BLPCAT. Also, Canoe1967, could we keep this discussion in one place instead of repeating ourselves in both places? Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say at this point to place Heard in the LGBT categories - she's not clearly identified precisely how she sees herself (whether lesbian or bisexual), but we do have clear support for placing her in the larger LGBT area. Tabercil (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What Tabercil said.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tabercil. That is what I've been stating. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT could not be more clear. She must have explicitly identified as the orientation and it must be relevant to her notability. Heard fails on both counts. Adding the LGBT cat is against policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, I can't add too much more about why Heard should be placed in the LGBT category that wouldn't be redundant. She has explicitly identified as being a part of the LGBT community. One does not have to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to be a part of the LGBT community. Some people, for example, identify as pansexual and assert that it is different than bisexuality, but are still a part of the LGBT community. Others identify as non-heterosexual or genderqueer or don't go by any specific label, but are still a part of the LGBT community. Being "non-heterosexual," a term that is used fairly well in scholarly fields, automatically makes that person a part of the LGBT category by default (unless they are an asexual who experiences neither romantic nor sexual attraction). If BLPCAT were as clear as you think it is with regard to the LGBT category, general consensus would not be to place her in it. It identifies her as being a part of the LGBT community, which is backed by her words, without going against her wish to not have a specific sexual orientation label placed on her. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also noted how her being an out actor is "relevant to [her] public life or notability" (notice that policy says "or"; one or the other). Heard sees herself as representing LGBT visibility. Besides that, any time an actor comes out in Hollywood, it becomes a part of their notability...because sources consistently write about their having come out (as they do in Heard's case). Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth dates

I have noticed a few BLP articles with a birth date or year that has no source at all. I have removed one. What is the consensus on how to deal with these? I did try sourcing that one but to no avail.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If it has no source, then remove it if you think it's problematic -- but perhaps do a search first to see if you can find a source for it. In other words, you done good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

This article is a mess, consisting of an almost entirely unsourced section about his personal life, followed by one massive listing of the various controversies that he has been embroiled in. This seems to be a case of undue weight, and IPs have been occasionally blanking parts of the content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed one section, since it was sourced almost entirely to a diatribe against Donald Sterling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Conor Maynard

In the information box on the Conor Maynard, I believe it says 20th of November instead of 21st, small error as its written correctly down below. Also I believe that his middle name is "Paul" and not "Pablo". That's all :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgray311 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Lissack

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

Bbb23 refuses to allow mention of Lissack's two books. He wrote them. They are properly sourced. They are relevant to his present academic career. Bbb23 just does not like anything positive re Lissack to go on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In your prev edits you added some other unsourced material and it can't be reinserted without a reliable source. You could reference his having written the 2 books to his own website (lissack.com). It's a self-published source which means there are limitations on how it can be used, but I'd say it's okay for that. Coverage in "Publishers Weekly" or similar is an alternative. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the books to the article and commented on the Talk page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it okay to cite to a self-published source for the books? If I say I wrote a book, how is that not self-serving? It needs a secondary source. In addition, there needs to be something about the books that makes them noteworthy, which can only come from a secondary source. I'll leave your edit alone for the time being, though, to see if others have comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't think it's warranted to mention an author's books that were published by a legit. non-vanity publishing house in their bio? The only claim is that he wrote or co-wrote a couple of books. I don't see it's unduly self-serving. If the claim was the books were pivotal to human development or wonderfully written then sure it would be. Notability of the person is already established through secondary sources. If we were talking about standalone articles for the books it'd be a different matter, but this is a very brief mention in the bio. The earlier book seems to be cited independently a fair amount according to googlescholar, incidentally. Like I said better sources such as Publishers Weekly and the like were alternatives, but it really doesn't strike me as anything extraordinary we're saying here. Still, since some editors have reported difficulties accessing the site, I've now added references to The Independent and The New York Times. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My preference generally but specifically with authors is not to list all their works unless there's something noteworthy about that particular work. Anything that is in a Wikipedia article has to be sufficiently noteworthy to be included. Carried to an extreme, if an author wrote 3,000 books, it would be ludicrous to list them all. But, conceptually, the same thing applies even if the author wrote only 10 books. A better place to refer to the "list" of the works is through external links and something like WorldCat. Otherwise, the article becomes just a resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AfD (2nd nom)

I have been looking through this page and it's sources and I believe that it is improperly and poorly sourced. Given the nature of the negative information and the bias towards negativity coupled with the lack of credible source I would ask for someone to have a look at this article.

Over half of the links to sources are either broken, point to original research, blogs or primary sources. It is my belief that this person may be harmed by the content and it's bias.

I nominated this article for deletion some time ago and consensus was to keep and improve, no improvement appears to have taken place, in fact it has got worse. I have just nominated it a second time. Maybe it would qualify for a speedy delete?

Also there appears to be references to this individuals family members, date of birth, ages, marriage dates etc that are not referenced due to broken links.

--Sweboi (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The recent history gives a few clues why it's deteriorated so much. SPAs have been adding swathes of contentious negative material.
  • User:Oil.sharon stands out with additions like "However, and to no one’s surprise..." He can have a special talk page message.
  • User:Liam.UAE is another who only adds chunk after chunk of negative contentious content, using edit summaries like "reflects accuracy". I'll endeavour to be accurate in the message I leave on his talk page later, too.
• I see an IP removed lots of the poorly sourced hyper-unduly-weighted negative content, leaving an innocuous mid-sized stub. They were of course blocked. No effort was made to communicate with them using the article Talk or their user talk pages; {{uw-vandalism4}} doesn't count; meanwhile the registered editors who essentially transformed it into an attack page were left alone to do so. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Scott Kaplan

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

In looking at the revision history it seems that properly sourced material about Mr. Kaplan's job history has been removed by user skaplan9 on May23. This material involves lawsuits and Mr. Kaplan's removal from his previous position. They are newsworthy and should not have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.158.60 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for the lack of sources. The removed Controversy section did give undue weight to individual incidents. If something like that should be covered it needs to be done appropriately, using reliable sources. There was a single-source (actually two functionally identical ones) to the removed material, but the incidents were given rather lurid and undue focus nonetheless. I'll visit the coincidentally named user's talk page shortly. --92.6.202.54 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User Skaplan9 (talk) welcomed accordingly. I get the impression from the edit history the user has forgotten their login details and created a different account once or twice (abandoning the earlier one). Importantly, there is no evidence of bad faith or concurrent use of accounts so I don't see this is a problem. As far as the disparaging remark(s) he's alleged to have made and/or his leaving the station, a brief conservatively-written and especially well-sourced mention that's free of conjecture might be reasonable. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sid Rosenberg

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

Can somebody have a look at the "Sid Rosenberg" page please? I noticed it while adding wikilinks to the article above on "Scott Kaplan", with whom Sid Rosenberg worked. The rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated and I think it gets worse as you go down the page. I have to go do some errands or I'd start on it myself. Thanks. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Божидар Томалевски

I'm sorry for posting here, but there is no noticeboard in my language. The article violates the biographies of living persons policies by slandering the person with an unreliable source. I had answers from the local site administrators, but it seems they have overlooked the text in the BLP policy. I judge so by the posts in the talk page and the lack of investigation on the subject. Thank you for the time and support! Massacreto (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You might need to seek out specific editors who can work in Russian for help on this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian (the article is in Bulgarian and the both are not so close as they appear), I really don't know where to turn. Massacreto (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be fun, but you could start looking for currently recently-active editors in Category:User_bg, and or a post at WT:WikiProject Bulgaria --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco

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

This entry is beyond poorly sourced. The sources that are listed are from his youtube video that has nothing to do with this article. Most of the references have been deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.145.133 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

William Rathje dead

William Rathje died Friday. The best source I can find for this so far is [35]. Only a blog, but Shanks is a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to find a better source either so far. Even arizona.edu, where he was emeritus professor, or stanford.edu where he'd been listed as affiliate Faculty didn't have a news item. Another postdoc researcher Johan Normark blogged about it & Bob Muckle an anthro at CapilanoU mentioned it on his Twitter, but that's all I found. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Brett Kimberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A group of anonymous editors and new accounts are repeatedly and insistently adding poorly-sourced negative material to the Brett Kimberlin article. They are doing so at the behest of a group of right-wing bloggers who are targeting the subject of the article. The subject is an enthusiastic lawyer and has sued several critics, so I suggest that administrators remove the poorly-sourced material and lock down the page. — goethean ॐ 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, since the poorly-sourced material accuses the subject of a crime, I suggest that the material be permanently nuked. — goethean ॐ 17:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer as to the material you want removed and what crime you are referring to? Also, which accounts are you accusing of editing the article "at the behest", etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing weblogs have been declaring "Everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin" day.[36] Suddenly multiple IP users appear at the article, adding material cited to these blogs. I presume that these events are connected. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Search on the term "murder" at this diff: [37] — goethean ॐ 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

More diffs: [38][39][40][41][42][43] — goethean ॐ 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've reedited the Blog Day section, which, currently, is based on only one source. It wasn't compliant with that one source. I've also folded the Blog Day section into the litigation section to give it less prominence. Besides, it appears to naturally fit within that section.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As far is CU is concerned, these accounts are not socks. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps there's a whiff of abattoir... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks due to BLP concerns. I will leave to others to filter out the wheat from the chaff here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arjun Sarja

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

The biography of Arjun Sarja has been modified with vile. Would request someone from Tamilnadu to take up to correct the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranwiki (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I warned the violating IP 17.196.161.174 address - diff - and watchlisted the biography.Youreallycan 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

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

I added new sources the demonstrate that facts that our enemies try to publish false information and lies about Moni Aizik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam.kamil (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment, not to mention your edits to the article, is preposterous.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gustavus J Simmons biography

Resolved

 – Links fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A couple of the links in the References seem to be dead and one has been changed by the University of New Mexico who hosts it, but an attempt to edit them to insert live or corrected links fails to open the references list so editing can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic7 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found three problem links in the article. One I marked as dead. One I fixed completely. The third I fixed, although I don't think it's as good as the original. I don't understand what you mean by the last part of your post ("an attempt to ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem links. I obviously didn't. and still don't, know how to do it. All that matters is that they are working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic7 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. 92.6.202.54 also fixed one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Golub

Eric Golub Removed contentious, poorly sourced, potentially libelous material in a section titled "Public Reception."Observation Station (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If those sources are all that's available to source an article on this person, then this one is headed to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The subject is a blogger who has angered some Ron Paul supporters by writing unfavorably about Dr. Paul. Observation Station (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Shipley

• Tony Shipley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[44] restored material sourced to non-verifiable (404 error) pages, and appears to be written as a political campaign ad. I suggest and request that others review that material, and my attempt at using NPOV to present the controversy fairly. Thanks. Collect (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked a couple of links and didn't get 404 errors. Looks to me like you're engaging in large-scale deletion of sourced material. If there are more specific problems, address them at a more detailed level. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Check more. Also the wording was less than neutral by any standards. Cheers.

In the Tennessee General Assembly press room, Shipley has become known as "Captain Apocalypse" for his insistence that the proliferation of LGBT rights will incur catastrophic divine wrath

Shipley was also accused of secessionist rhetoric for his reported statement

According to a children's rights advocate, Representative Shipley claimed that "They can do whatever they want out in California, with gays passing babies around, and violating God's law

Rep. Shipley has been criticized for his district mailing racially-charged fliers against his African-American general election opponent and perceived fear-mongering during both the 2008 and 2010 Tennessee election seasons

Self-Described "Statesman" Suggests Bodily Harm Directed Toward Felllow Republican

Etc. do not seem to me to be other than attempts to turn Wikipedia into a campaign pamphlet. YMMV. And I note you consider these "charges" to be "well-sourced" per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want help at BLPN, give people the information they will need to help you. For example, the particular links that come up as 404. I'm not going to check every single one, particularly after the few that I check are fine. Given that there are sources (regular ones, newspaper-like), your edits do look like vandalism (as per the edit summary of the other editor there). I don't see you trying to use NPOV to present the controversy fairly -- I only see you doing large-scale section-blanking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are asserting that seeking NPOV is "vandalism"? And you defend charging a person with promoting a crime with allegations not sufficient for any BLP I have ever seen? Amazing! Collect (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that your first post here didn't provide a basis for people to help you: the problem seemed to be dead links (itself not even a basis for removing material) when in fact most of the links seem not to be dead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[45], 404. Mashhvillescene = blog entries without sign of being fact-checked. [46] does not even mention the person. [47] ditto. Using sources which do not even mention the person for whom a claim is made is just how valid a source? [48] does not mention Shipley at all. [49] not found. In short - either not RS opr not even mentioning the person at all. The main source is "nashville scene" blogs which are not RS by a mile for contentious claims about a living person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[50], [51], [52], [53] -- not 404, not blogs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And the concept of UNDUE apllies here as well for the rimesnews cite that someone said a proposal would be unconstitutional is of what weight in a BLP? MEanwhile, I commend people to read the nashvillescene "pith" blogs to see how well they can be used for contentious claims about a living person. I suggest they are not written to journalistic fact standards at all, but with strong points of view, and can not be used for "contentious claims." Such as urging bodily harm on a person. YMMV. Collect (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one is an interview with Shipley. No reason to doubt that he said the things he is reported to have said. The threat of bodily harm comes in the third one; again, no reason to doubt that he said he was going to crack Kelsey's head. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- "No reason to doubt" a contentious claim is not how WP:RS and WP:BLP operate. My edits left in criticism of the person - as supported by clear wording in reliable sources. That is what we are supposed to do. Even durig political 'silly season." Collect (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

User 188.29.207.81 has inserted a 'criticisms' section into this BLP article, in which the subject's honesty is questioned and some kind of fraud on the subject's part is implied. User's source is a (tiny) minority viewpoint put forward in a 2011 book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by Joshua Foer (whose book and viewpoint are already mentioned in the article using wording agreed by non-anonymous editor consensus). No reliable published secondary source has picked up on Foer's claims, except in a New York Times review (which criticised Foer's stance concerning the subject, without mentioning any specifics). In fact, I cannot find a single reliable published secondary source that mentions any 'criticism' of the subject.

The user's edits are controversial, poorly-sourced, and defamatory. Moreover, they would seem to fall under Wiki's definition of 'original research'.

The user has a long pattern of repeatedly (re)inserting poorly-sourced and defamatory edits to this article without seeking consensus (often ignoring previously established consensus among non-anonymous Wiki editors), and of edit warring. Talk page discussions go nowhere.

In keeping with Wiki guidelines for BLP articles, I have immediately removed the potentially defamatory and poorly-sourced edits from this BLP article.

Please take whatever editorial action is necessary to prevent an umpteenth pointless edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misleading. Falsely characterised. The body of the edit was originally authored by User Saunders. Later, IP user supported and restored edit. Note, Foer made several criticisms in his book. Only "one" criticicm was previously debated and vaguely edited in - mention of possible use of mnemonic techniques. User Saunders added a quote and two "different" criticisms both from Foer's book. Verifiable and well-sourced primary and secondary sources were supplied. See User Saunders statement in talk page. 194.238.70.70 (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What are the reliable published sources besides the Foer book? Oughtprice99 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN rule states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (my emphasis)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• - Yes - its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content that is repeatedly being added by the same user (or a couple of users , some connection is to a web forum) under different IP addresses. As it is a repeat attack pattern I recently requested indefinite semi protection at the noticeboard but was refused. If a couple of experianced users can watchlist for weak cited/primary cited content undue critical content related to Foers opinions that the subject is a fake/etc that would be great. Youreallycan 15:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael A. Bellesiles‎

Further information: /Archive152 § Michael Bellesiles, and /Archive150 § Michael A. Bellesiles

Has been "deleted by redirect" [‎http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_A._Bellesiles&curid=2063211&action=history] repeatedly despite the issue of "concensus" being raised that he is BLP1E and should not have an article. I have suggested that this issue (BLP1E) is one which should be raised at AfD and not used as a blanket reason to delete by redirect. I suggest that he is notable as an author of more than one book reviewed by newspapers (including the NYT), and also meets the academic notabiity standards (professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles). I suggest "BLP1E" would only apply if he did not meet such standards - but that since he meets both, that it can not be used as a reason for this deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I also note the "consensus" is a 3 - 2 "consensus. Collect (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bellesiles' notability derives from the book Arming America, which he published to great acclaim but which was subsequently found to contain misleading and unprofessional scholarship. It was a pretty big scandal, and it's covered in great detail at Arming America. Since Bellesiles is notable in the context of this scandal, and since independent reliable sources have little to say about him outside of this particular scandal, there appears (in my view) to be a consensus at the talkpage to redirect Michael A. Bellesiles to Arming America, per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E.

  Discussion of this issue has been extensive; in fact, it was discussed on this very noticeboard about two weeks ago. Since Collect has neglected to link to previous discussions, here are some potentially useful links:

  • Michael A. Bellesiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Arming America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • BLP/N thread from two weeks ago which concluded with a decision to redirect the article
  • Current talkpage discussion thread, in which consensus appears to support a redirect
• I think the last link - to the talk page discussion - demonstrates that editors are making an effort to reason with Collect, or at least make sense of his objections, but they are a moving target and we seem to be talking past each other. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I subnit that consensus was not so reached, that Bellesiles is not BLP1E, that he has multiple books reviewed in such minor places as the NYT, that he also meets the academic notability standards as a professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles, etc. Further that I sought to remove improper material attacking him from the BLP, and that I added material which treats him favourably. [54] Nor do I regard anything other than an AfD as being the proper means to remove the content of an article from Wikipedia.

    Further that on 15 May MastCell made this edit: [55] with the specific comment (Collect's version is much closer to where we should be; see discussion at WP:BLP/N) thus showing you knew my position as of 15 May. The idea that my position on 15 May was somehow a mystery is belied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    • You're wrong. AFD is for getting an administrator to hit the delete button, removing the article and all of its edit history from view. There's no such thing as "deletion by redirect". Redirects are enacted with the edit tool, aren't limited to administrators, don't involve the administrator deletion tool, don't remove the edit history, and aren't within the remit of Articles for deletion. Don't send things to AFD where no-one including yourself wants the deletion button pressed. I will speedily chuck such a nomination out (unless I'm beaten to it). The article's talk page is for discussion of mergers, redirects, and all of the things that are done to the article with the edit tool. (And this noticeboard, WikiProject talk pages, and RFC are ways of obtaining more editors' opinions in such a talk page discussion.) The delete button is not the only way to address notability issues, as has already been pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Making a page not visible to ordinary readers is, IMO, a "deletion." The entire page content was removed. The rationales were: the person is not nottable (shown errant), that this is a simple case of BLP1E (shown errant) and that is done per consensus (now shown to be errant). Might you tell us why the redirect is proper, please? Collect (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Come now! You've been around for six years at least. You've seen what an actual deletion with the deletion tool looks like. Your opinion is wrong. A redirect is not a deletion; it isn't enacted with the deletion tool; and "ordinary readers" can see the edit history just fine. You should know these basics of the writing tool that we're all using by now. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • And you should recognize that using a redirect to accomplish the same net result to outside users is the equivalent of a deletion. Especially since it consists of the entire removal of the article content. Pointing out that an admin deletion also removes the history is not relevant when the purpose of the deletion of the entire article content suffices as far as anyone seeking to read about the person is concerned. Cheers - but saying "well - technically deletion of the entire content is not really 'deletion'" is non-utile here since my point was fairly clear to everyone else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it does not accomplish the same result. I've already explained why. Twice. And you should know why already, as this is basic using-our-writing-tool stuff. Moreover: Far from your point being clear, it was already explained to you by MastCell as incorrect on the talk page. Now get a grip and stop mischaracterizing things as deletions when you know that they are not, and stop wrongly claiming Articles for deletion as the "proper means" for something that is not deletion. Such histrionics about how "It's all been deleted!" when it patently hasn't been, ever, and obstructionist refusal to recognize the article's talk page as a proper venue for discussing whether the article should be a redirect or not should be beneath you. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chip Rogers

This report is in response to recent edits (e.g., [56], [57]) on the article for Chip Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a US state-level politician. Apparently there's been a lot of news recently alleging a prior career in sports handicapping that has raised some hackles. I'm signing off for the day, so hopefully others can keep an eye on this and perhaps do some quality citation. Thanks, — Scientizzle 13:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Contentious claims require strong sourcing. Meanwhile, claims about him getting lobbyist gifts were in accurately reflected - the claims are now accurate per the source given (that he did not seek gifts, and that he has now returned gifts). Collect (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Vaudeville

This cable TV shows seems to have existed to make fun of eccentric New Yorkers. There is a list of people who are supposed to have appeared on it, which is completely unsupported by any kind of reference. I would have said that this list is in itself a BLP violation, if not an outright hoax, and in addition some of the individual descriptions are certainly violations. Unfortunately one editor is edit warring to keep this stuff in the article [58], [59], and to shut down discussion on the talk page [60] and on this page [61]. Some outside views would be welcome. Rita Mordio (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)