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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:27, 1 January 2013

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.

Suzy Favor-Hamilton

Could someone take a look at the Suzy Favor-Hamilton article? My first impression is that there are balance and neutrality issues there, particularly in the lead, which currently reads a bit like an attack piece. Nsk92 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add we have a complaint about the version of the lead that included her being a prostitute, and the complaint seems to be from an academic unrelated to her who mentions her article as an example of misogyny and sexism in our articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of minor changes to the article, but am unsure whether or not the material about her escort work should be kept. It's well-sourced and she's fairly high-profile, but I'm not sure whether its likely to be useful information for many readers. Other opinions would be welcome. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a post I made on the subject's article Talk page:

"...Indeed, I think all of those editing this article should review and thoughtfully consider WP:BLP (Wikipedia:biographies of living persons) and refer to it for guidance on how to proceed with this matter. Of special concern, in my view, given some of the comments on this [Talk] page, is the following quote from ¶ 3 of WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment..."

I must confess that at this point, I am in favor of deleting the section on her sex-work experience. If, at some later time, an editor can supply a convincing justification for restoring this section, well, so be it. Until then, I do not see that it has value sufficient to outweigh the presumption that I think we are supposed to have against inclusion. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'm very cautious about recentism. In this case, I think it does belong in the article. It does not belong in the lead, as some have tried to put it, but it certainly belongs in the article. There is no doubt about it happening since she has very publicly admitted it. Sourcing isn't an issue either. I can see this as having long-term notability as something significant in her lifetime. A short mention of a couple of sentences isn't going to be an UNDUE issue. Nor is this a case of "making titillating claimns" etc. The subject has clearly admitted it happened. She admits it happened for several months and with her husband's knowledge. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a whole heap of unreferenced info which read like a CV. Giant Snowman 13:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DUE/UNDUE issue

Favor advertised her price ($600 an hour) on the website for the escort agency, publicly viewable. That number has been reported repeatedly by sources ranging from the LA and NYTimes, CBS News to the Vancouver Sun. Favor doesn't dispute it at all, has admitted the woman in the ad on the website it her etc. The information is well sourced, not contested and shouldn't be controversial. However, a couple of editors have unilaterally declared that the single sentence inclusion of the info is UNDUE. The closest thing to a reason has been that it's titillating or tabloidy. (So I guess the LA Times, NY Times, CBS et al are all just a bunch of tabloids). I'd like to here some other opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

When someone tweets about it, I'm not sure we can say that we're violating someone's privacy here with a brief sentence or two. Given that the subject doesn't appear to be complaining about it, I'd suggest that we don't have good reason here for editors' qualms to trump the subject's apparent comfort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent the facts, Niteshift36: you are unilaterally trying to insert that information against a consensus of at least 4 other editors, and you seem to be the only editor who thinks it should be in the article. It's a clear case of WP:IDHT Belchfire-TALK 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are misrepresenting my friend. I inserted the well-sourced material. Others removed it without a real reason being given. Then, after repeated requests for discussion, the reason being given is "undue weight" and tabloid material........which is what I stated here. Already, we see another experienced, uninvolved editor who thinks inclusion is warranted, so clearly discussing this on a braoder scale isn't a bad idea, instead of relying on a false "consensus" because a couple of you guys made a decision (a decision that some have yet to show a policy based reason for, or even explain at all). So no, it's not IDHT, it's having an actual discussion, something you clearly aren't comfortable with. I invited discussion more than once. What has been your idea of discussion? "It's undue weight, unquestionably. Doesn't belong." Yeah, that's your whole reasoning. Because you said so. Decree issued, now everyone obey. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable discussing this. See? I'm discussing it right now. Your claim of "false consensus" is, well, false. And tendentious. Your edit has been reverted no less than 4 times by 3 different editors and nobody owes you an explanation. But you got one anyway. You just refuse to accept it. And if you check the last edit to this discussion, below (Nomo's clarification), you will see that you are still all alone. Belchfire-TALK 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're comfortable? Funny, your discussion has been quite lacking up to this point. I guess now that you have a wider audience, you have to put on a better show. Yes, reasoning IS needed when well sourced, non-controversial material is removed. I've practically had to beg for a reason and most of it has been "I said so". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what's changed is that now I have time to waste on this nonsense. And you're wrong, nobody owes you any explanation, especially when you're lone edit warrior trying to force in his edits over consensus. Furthermore, there's no requirement for verbosity - why should I say more than "It's undue weight", when that's the whole reason? It's not my job to talk you down off the ledge. We have a clear consensus through editing, and now you've been given your explanation (which seems to be unanimous). Time for everybody to move on. Belchfire-TALK 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do have a burden to explain why something is or isn't undue weight, especially when it is challenged. That's what a disucssion entails (you still seem a little fuzzy on the concept). Regardless, all you've done here is tell me that you don't have to explain and then discuss me........thus far, you really haven't addressed the actual issue. That is "what makes this undue weight?" in case you forgot. Funny how someone who professes to recognize the error in Argumentum ad populum relies so heavily on strictly counting numbers and not actually addressing the issue with meaningful discussion. In any case, I'll let you have the WP:LASTWORD because you obviously feel a need for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your animated comment seems to be directed at me, and so I suggest that you clarify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- I now understand that the issue is whether to include the price she charged. (I had thought that it was about whether to omit mention of the escort bit altogether.) I do not think it is necessary to include the price. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain why a single sentence is undue weight? None of them have been able to. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightshift36. I'm back. My reason for excluding the price is something to do with taste, and the question, Would an encyclopedia include it? In my opinion, it's tasteless and unencyclopedic. It's fine for a newspaper, but a biography in an encyclopedia just wouldn't go into that degree of prurience. I can't explain it any better than that, I'm afraid. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's fine. We disagree and I'm ok with that. We have different opinions. What I disagree with is arbitrary removal, sans discussion and all the accompanying venom and sarcasm that took the place of discussion. I'd agree with you if we were trying to publish a more in-depth price list (some sources indicated she charged extra for certain acts), expand it to include her overnight and weekend rates (again, something other sources have published) or if we were in some way belaboring the point. None of those are things I'm talking about. I'm simply talking about a very brief mention, possibly included in an existing sentence. I don't see it as sensationalizing it. As to the question about whether or not an encyclopedia would include it, then answer is yes. Look at Divine Brown. Not only do we talk about how much she charged Hugh Grant, we talk about how she got into prostitution because of a $133 electric bill, that she made $1000 in 5 hours and how she told Grant it was $100 but accepted the $60 he offered her. Yes, I realize that is a different BLP, but it does go to your question about whether or not an encyclopedia would put that info in. Other examples would be Heidi Fleiss and Sunset Thomas. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't this encyclopedia I had in mind in my above comment. It's my opinion that adding the price to this article is inappropriate and not encyclopedic. We differ on that. It is unlikely either will convince the other on what is ultimately a subjective judgment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an encyclopedia and it is the one we are working on, my presumption was that it's the one we were talking about. Wikipedia is unlike the other ones, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Brittanica wouldn't have an article on Shorty's Lunch or All Star Cashville Prince either, but we do. As I clearly illustrated, price information is not only included in other articles, but even more in-depth in some. True, we probably won't convince each other, but being able to disagree civilly is much better than the alternative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peter Ritter

A friend was wondering if this person is notable enough for a wikipedia article. On parole for a US$270 million ponzi/pyramid thing. Google search has details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe create a draft at WP:AFC or in userspace? Giant Snowman 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am too busy trying to keep my other BLP creations alive. I couldn't be bothered creating one on this asshole.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Simpson (British politician)

David Simpson is a Member of Parliament and a prominent Democratic Unionist Party politician in Northern Ireland. His long-serving election agent, speechwriter and chief aide, David McConaghie, is a minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and was the press officer of one of Northern Ireland's leading evangelical Christian creationist pressure groups, the Caleb Foundation - he was thus a public figure in his own right.

Simpson's bio article had the following paragraph added, all factually accurate, neutrally worded and double-sourced from reliable media:

====Constituency office incident====

On 25 September 2012 Simpson contacted police following the discovery of a hidden camera in the toilet of his constituency office in Portadown. Simpson's election agent and constituency assistant, David McConaghie, who had played a key role in Simpson's 2005 election victory, was arrested, and was released pending further inquiries. When the matter became public in November 2012, Simpson stated "The police are currently investigating issues pertaining to an individual brought to their attention by myself. I no longer employ this individual and he does not hold any office in the party."

One editor objected to the inclusion of this paragraph on the grounds that it was "not news", having earlier argued that it somehow implied guilt on the part of Simpson. I argued for its retention on the grounds that it most certainly was news and, in the final version quoted above, focused on Simpson without in any way defaming him. It does not defame McConaghie either, even in the peculiarly strict legal regimes applying in the four UK and Irish legal jurisdictions, in that it simply states the uncontested facts that he was arrested, released and is no longer employed by Simpson. These facts have been widely reported in the mass media - two sources were given in the article but many others can be added.

A third opinion was sought, whereupon User:TransporterMan intervened and immediately not only cut the entire passage from the Simpson article, but edited relevant details out of the talk page exchanges between me and the other editor. He alleged that the material "violate[d] WP:BLPCRIME and cannot be included in Wikipedia until the criminal charges are resolved". He also indicated - contrary to normal protocol - that he was unwilling to discuss this directly and wanted any objection to his summary edit to be taken here. I request views on whether (a) the whole passage should stand, on the basis that McConaghie falls within the WP:WELLKNOWN category; or (b) the material does in fact violate WP:BLPCRIME so that the passage should be reworded without naming McConaghie until the matter is resolved in the courts. Brocach (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the passage in question as the sole purpose in including it seemed to be to introduce negativity into a politician's BLP through a bit of guilt by association. I can't think of any other politicians article in which a significant section of the article is devoted to alleged wrongdoing by a third party, who hasn't even been convicted, making the material questionable on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP grounds. Additionally all the news stories on this event occurred the day after it happened, there doesn't seem to be any lasting impact to suggest it is an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Brocach claims that McConaghie is a well known figure, yet if all the news stories about this one event are stripped away, there's hardly anything on him in reliable sources and certainly not enough to sustain an article on someone who would fail WP:GNG. Brocach is clearly quite determined to include this material regardless, ignoring WP:BRD and even violating the WP:1RR which applies to such articles under the Troubles arbitration case with 2 reverts to the Simpson article on 6 December. Brocach now appears to be attempting to circumvent this discussion, having created an article on David_McConaghie which may later be used to simply readd the BLP violations in some form. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the original edit to the Simpson article suggests guilt by association, especially since it starts with the statement that it was Simpson who called in the law. However I also fail to see what it adds to the article in question. As for the article on the alleged perp, I agree that he seems not truly notable. Btw, anybody familiar with the Flann O'Brien play Faustus Kelly?TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just concerned by Brocach's near single minded focus on adding the McConaghie material. That campaign has so far seen him ignore WP:BRD, breach WP:1RR, ignore a third opinion and potentially circumvent a discussion by setting up a separate article. Then, when that article looks like it may be headed for deletion, he badgers editors who argued for delete to change their mind (here and here) in possible violation of WP:CANVASS. Yesterday he expressed concern for observing "baby Jesus' birthday", a fairly irrelevant and bizarre way to admonish an atheist who lives in a majority Islamic country where the Christian minority celebrate Christmas on 7 January. Since he raised that argument/concern, I really have to ask why he spent a good ten hours of a key holiday/family day in Ireland where he lives single mindedly adding stuff about McConaghie? Not content with all that, he has now set up yet another article of questionable notability, the Caleb_Foundation, to write about McConaghie and where the main/only sources used are the one event news stories about McConaghie. Maybe that article is because he has a new found interest in the Caleb Foundation, but given the background to all this, it seems more likely that it will be just another forum for him to link to one off news stories about McConaghies alleged participation in a crime. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A one sentence mention should be sufficient and there is no reason to mention the accused who probably does not meet BLP for having his own article. TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention inserted, without naming the individual (who has only been arrested and released, rather than 'accused'. Brocach (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material has now been readded there but I really don't see consensus above to ignore the third opinion by readding the material (albeit without mentioning the accused) and giving it such WP:UNDUE weight in the article. As an editor above notes, it is hard to see what the material adds to the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Paolilla and Kip Kinkel - Rename to reflect crimes?

Christine Paolilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kip Kinkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After looking at the article, Christine Paolilla was only known for committing the murder, and there was one other perpetrator who had killed himself. Shouldn't the article be renamed after the murder?

Also, should the article on Kip Kinkel be renamed to reflect the crime he was committed for? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These questions are best asked on the talkpage of the articles, however I see no reason to move the article for Christine Paolilla, while the article for Kip Kinkel does appear to be more about the incident than the figure. This is a consensus issue, not a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if the discussions go on the talk pages themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Harrison

- we have a ~~COI~~ editor removing negative material from this article.[1] I say COI because the editor, Stone Savant (talk · contribs), has said that they uploaded an image you took of Hank Harrison and that it was copyright to Hank Harrison. The material is about allegations that Harrison gave his daughter Courtney Love LSD when she was 4, an allegation he denies. At one point he added a link to Harrison's website with a copy of a polygraph test given anonymously to Harrison which he said proved that the allegations were false and also proved Harrison wasn't anti-Semitic or racist. I removed that as it wasn't a reliable source (and polygraph tests prove nothing).

I think this material is relevant to this BLP. The source I added was to a book by Poppy Z. Brite which I think is a clearly reliable source (she wrote what is more or less an official biography). It says "She was encouraged to stretch her imagination, and occasionally was helped along with a bit too much zeal. When she was four years old, she has said, her father gave her LSD. (She has no memory of this, but later, during the Harrisons' divorce, Linda and one of Hank's girlfriends would testify that it was so in child-custody court.)" This material is also in Courtney Love's article. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC) :Withdrawing COI allegation due to his post on my talk page denying a close relationship and saying that he assumed as he took the picture he could upload it. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The denial of COI is spurious. His signature is zendogg@gmail.com which is also the contact email given for Hank Harisson at http://www.hankharrison.com/indexx.html. It is clearly Harisson himself (or his representative) trying to supress negative information. It seems to me that if he is notable it is because of his relationship/conflict with Courtney Love, not because of his authorship. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't link the sig, but he now tells me "There is no reason to delete the polygraph results as long as Mr. Harrison is under attack by Courtney's minions. He told me he does not need a wikipedia page and wants the entire page removed.". 06:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

This appears to be Hank Harrison himself, see [2]. And User:Stone Savant. This email address is information he is freely putting out on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed at the talkpage whether or not including Courtney Love's and Linda Carroll's accusations against Harrison is a BLP violation. Input welcome.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nye

An IP user appears to be desirous to insert material about this BLP stating that the subject conducts no research. The tone of the edit [3] is negative in the opinion of at least two editors, but more importantly the source of this statement is the subject's own CV, which mentions nothing about research conducted by Mr. Nye. Inserting this tidbit is WP:OR. I would appreciate some eyes on this article for the short term. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nye is an entertainer - why anyone would think he was a research scientist is mind-boggling. Collect (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I left the IP a 3RR warning. This appears to be genuine newbieness, be careful not to bite. Zad68 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem could be solved by removing the part of the description that says he is a scientist which usually implies doing scientific research. The inclusion of scientist is based on a single not-very-reliable source that calls him that. When I read the intro of that article the description of him as a scientist also makes me want to add a disclaimer - the guy only has a BA degree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he has a B.Sc., from Cornell, in Mechanical Engineering, as stated in the article and as supported by a Cornell source and other sources cited therein; and as confirmed by the fact that The Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering does B.Sc.s. (Cornell has apparently switched between B.Sc. and B.M.Eng. more than once in its history, but I can find no evidence that it has ever offered a B.A. for mechanical engineering, not even when the name was the Sibley College of Mechanical Engineering and the Mechanic Arts.) Ironically, that's a fairly ridiculous choice of source given the other sources already in the article. That citation is falsified, moreover. The headline given in the citation is Nye called "scientist", but the original Reuters article, apparently unchanged in the Toronto Sun, had the headline Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids. Uncle G (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes sense, but in any case a degree with a B. does not a scientist make. And yes I agree the citation is dubious.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most universities give a "B.S." for engineering degrees - it does not make engineers into "scientists", alas. Mechanical engineers learn enough physics and mathematics to make sure that their creations work, but do not investigate the "why" of the physics behind them. Collect (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's only Maunus who has introduced the red herring about baccalaureates. The problem with the article itself is that people have take Nye's self-description as a scientist (It's in his autobiographical blurb on his WWW site, in interviews going back to the 1990s, and — as an argument that "engineers are applied scientists" — in a 1999 biography, ISBN 9781563086748.) and shoehorned it into a one-sentence laundry list of things in the first sentence of the article. It's the usual cram-everything-into-the-first-sentence bad writing; and it's silly, because the introduction is only two sentences long to begin with. It's not as though the article has run out of not-paper.
        It's a fairly poor article overall, too. For example: The claim that Nye was named the "Science Guy" is sourced to a WWW article with no named authorship that says "legend has it". In fact Ross Shafer gives a much more prosaic, and less "legendary", explanation of the name in his book The Customer Shouts Back.
        Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original reason this BLPN section was started: It appears that the original issue is no longer an issue and so this is resolved. The article now does not make a direct claim that Nye is a "scientist" and instead says Nye "is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, and writer, who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing." I think "science educator" is a better descriptor than "scientist" and is supported by the sources. I agree with Uncle G that the prose could be improved, but this can be handled with normal discussion at the article Talk page. If we can agree there's no WP:BLP issue at this point, can't we mark this as resolved? Cheers... Zad68 13:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Looks like we all agree the "scientist" descriptor wasn't appropriate and it's now out of the article. The general article quality issues can be worked on at the article itself. Zad68 16:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Watchlisted. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given what's in the aforementioned autobiography and the biographies, I predict that this will be back. Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The ip is back restoring the unsourced information little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer 23:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I told you so. People who read the autobiography and the biographies are going to keep reintroducing the appellation "scientist" in good faith, and that's in turn going to encourage people like 72.223.110.8 to keep trying to rubbish it. Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Following on from that, I'm a bit concerned about the certainty with which that definition of scientist was decided. As an occasional but well qualified high school science teacher, I ask, am I not a scientist? If not, please don't tell my students. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's hard to tell, given that all that we have to go on is some things attached to a pseudonym in a discussion forum on the WWW and your claim to have once used OS/2. ☺
        Bill Nye, in contrast, has biographies and other articles published about him, saying things like "real-life comedian/scientist Bill Nye" (Fisch 2009, p. 415), "Bill Nye views engineers as applied scientists." (Haven & Clark 1999, p. 367), "A scientist-turned-comic and producer of educational media" (Gerl 2010, p. 533), and "Nye is actually a scientist with a degree from Cornell." (MediaWeek 1994, p. 38), as I pointed out above. It takes more than one word in a laundry list in an introduction to convey all of this. But given all of these, this issue will resurface, again and again, until the root cause is addressed. What's needed is more than those two sentences in the introduction.
        Fisch, Shalom M. (2009). "Educational Effects". In Bryant, Jennings; Oliver, Mary Beth (eds.). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Routledge Communication Series. Vol. 10. Taylor & Francis US. ISBN 9780805864496. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editoin= ignored (|edition= suggested) (help)
        
        Haven, Kendall F.; Clark, Donna Lynn (1999). "Bill Nye". 100 Most Popular Scientists for Young Adults: Biological Sketches and Professional Paths. Profiles and Pathways Series (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 9781563086748. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
        
        Gerl, E. (2010). "Nye, bill (1955–)". In Priest, Susanna Hornig (ed.). Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. SAGE. pp. 534–535. ISBN 9781412959209. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
        
        Mediaweek. Vol. 4, no. 18–32. A/S/M Communications. 1994. {{cite magazine}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
      - Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

At the article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting should the name of the father of the alleged perpetrator be mentioned? There is discussion of this on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the thread. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry—it doesn't really have a thread of its own. This is it. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thread's name is Nancy Lanza's maiden name. Like much of the rest of the content of the thread, Bus stop's concern is way off topic. If he is truly concerned about the matter of naming the father of the alleged perpetrator, he should start a thread on THAT topic on the article's Talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time here. This thread should be closed immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed several times through several threads, as well as a Redirect for discussion that concluded that a redirect was even against BLP policy. Sorry , but Hilo48 is correct. This does appear to be a waste of time by refusing to accept community consensus on the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the present thread, Nancy Lanza's maiden name, the inclusion or exclusion of the father's name was discussed in this archived thread. And the inclusion or exclusion of the mother's maiden name was discussed briefly in this archived thread. (The discussion there seemed to concern whether or not the maiden name belonged in the lead.) I'm not sure that consensus was entirely clear, so perhaps these questions are worth revisiting. Also, perhaps I am missing other places that these questions were discussed, so I hope someone else can link to other such discussions. The discussion on the present Talk page is the first time I am weighing in at any discussions on the father's name and maiden name issue. It was only in the midst of discussing the maiden name issue on the present (non-archived) Talk page, that I became aware that the father's name was also omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to mix up discussions on two independent issues. If you want to discuss the father's name, start a new section. Myself? I don't think it's all that important, so I won't be starting one. And from now on I'll be tempted to delete irrelevant stuff from the Maiden name thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the reader should have to look elsewhere for the name of the father. Consensus is not entirely clear that the father's name should be omitted; arguments for the inclusion of the father's name are found here. Policy, namely WP:BLPNAME, is open to interpretation on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name. In the most general sense Wikipedia's default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be compiling reliably sourced information. I am fully aware that just because something is reliably sourced does not mean that it warrants inclusion, but I think the expectation should be that an argument can be presented supporting exclusion. It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father. Is there a reason the reader should not find the name of the father in our article? Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to demonstrate why it is important and how it fits within BLP policy, not ask others why it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop - Your case seems to be that if the thing you want included is reliably sourced, then you can stick it in unless someone else demonstrates why it's undue. I disagree with that philosophy. If you want it there, YOU must demonstrate why it should be there. "It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father" is not a strong reason. There may be a good argument to be made, but you haven't made it in a coherent fashion. What I really don't understand is your scattergun approach, sticking bits and pieces of your case all over the place in threads on other topics. Why don't you just create a new section on the article's Talk page, solely and explicitly about including the father's name. Then it can be discussed properly. And it will stop wasting peoples' time here. But before you do, make sure you have a solid, coherent argument to present. Much better than that one above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the two comments above mine. WP:BLP policy raises the stakes for including material beyond the justification that you have provided. I recommend that you look at similar articles, especially ones that are highly rated, and look at how they address issues like this one. And, yes, you should create a dedicated thread on the Talk page for further discussion. Andrew (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Graylock

I just created this article. I believe she is notable enough although I just started looking for sources. Does anyone wish to help out? --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is (just about) notable as well, based on a quick Google search - but the article in its current state is completely unacceptable. You need to find reliable third-party sources - and quickly, before it gets deleted. Giant Snowman 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with this page have not been resolved and I completely agree with GiantSnowman's assessment. Andrew (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schapelle Corby

An editor has posted to WP:AN#A Formal Report with a link to a formal report at [4] making complaints about our article on Schapelle Corby. They are asking for an investigation of this. The editor who request this (who says it was written by a third party, says:

I apologise for what may appear to be a random approach, but I am seeking to draw this to your attention in a less public way, to minimize its potential for reputational damage. Seeking to address this matter through the page itself would be entirely counter-productive.
The following is the first part of a formal report which identifies and evidences serious long term abuse of a Wikipedia article: http://issuu.com/wikiabuse/docs/wikipedia
I was unable to find a method to send that report by email, but I am aware of that copy, which a third party uploaded earlier today, for limited circulation.
The Wikipedia article in question is not only high profile, but the impact of the false information it presents may have caused severe damage to the subject, damage which persists, and which may prove to be increasingly serious. Further, the abuse of the article has been long term, and systemic.
The report recommends immediate remedial action, and a formal investigation, possibly involving a third party agency.
Could an appropriate person confirm that this will be investigated? I do not wish to engage in a debate on this matter, as I feel that the report contents are self evident, and I am not its author.
I thank you for your attention, and hope that you will receive this report in the spirit in which it is intended. I thank you for your efforts in seeking to ensure that Wikipedia continues to present an accurate and honest representation of the the topics it covers.
I am perfectly content for this prose to be deleted, on the basis that the issues in question will be taken on and researched privately by Wikipedia.
Thank you and regards, James Hedley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.J.Hedley (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the "Expendable Project." It alleges a vast conspiracy between the governments of Indonesia and Australia, across the main Australian media outlets, numerous Australian and Indonesian government departments, and large corporations including the owners of Sydney Airport, etc, etc. They would have you believe that these groups are all conspiring to keep Corby (who they maintain is innocent) behind bars in Indonesia to protect the highest corporate and political interests. I've read a few of the numerous "reports" from the Expendable Project's team of "academics". Not very impressive.

It is an anonymous advocacy website arguing Corby's innocence.

The first page of the latest report (linked above) says that records showed that Corby and her friends bags were 65kg, which they say is actually 5kg over their allowance (which is perfectly feasible so far). But it then goes on to say that because there is no evidence of a payment for excess luggage, then it is "glaringly obvious" proof that Corby's bag had 5kg of drugs added to it while in transit. Which is of course a bs conclusion - airlines let passengers take on excess luggage without charge at their discretion. Normally I have excess luggage - on one occasion have I been asked to pay. Just last week, i dropped someone off who got away with 20kg of excess baggage unpaid. --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a copy of the report, in case it needs to be sent somewhere. Do we know who wrote it?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you and others interested in this may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes. We have established mechanisms to resolve disputes. The are outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The ideal approach would be to follow that, although I understand that you are not the author and may not be willing to take next steps. I will take a look at it, but I guarantee that it is not fully self-contained, so a response, without any interaction with other parties, is likely to be imperfect.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading further, I'm quite unimpressed. Please pass along to whomever wrote it that they should post any evidence to the talk page of the article, and if that doesn't get the response they expect (which it won't, because much of it is poorly sourced, or relies on unacceptable sources) they can follow the dispute resolution, Urge them to not simply copy and paste it but to omit the smears against Wikipedia editors which are not supported by evidence, as that won't help. Urge them to read reliable sources, so they will understand why anonymous websites aren't considered acceptable references, and urge them to read WP:PRIMARY so they will understand the (less obvious) policy that primary sources, which may seem like the best sources, are actually not, and should be sparingly used, probably not in an article such as this. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am aware of the author, and that the focus of the second part of the investigation is on the editor patterns, logs, and the identities of those responsible.

I believe that he, and the handful who have read it, hope that this can be addressed internally. As the issues are extremely serious, and the abuses self evident and verifiable, it is hoped that ignorance of process should not prevent them from being addressed. It is certainly accepted that knowledge of due Wikipedia protocol for this sort of situation is almost non-existent.

I do thank you for your help and assistance, which is appreciated. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ignorance of process will not prevent it from being addressed, however, my hope is that we can provide information abut the appropriate process, so we can follow the process. While our processes are far from perfect, they have been refined over years of experience, and work reasonably well (oddly, we probably do a better job of handling editorial disputes than we do when handling editor disputes, luckily, this is more editorial than editor.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that there is a bit of discussion here on the article's talk page that does reference this report. There was an edit, since reverted for lacking a reliable source, that referenced the report and it's conclusions. Ravensfire (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct Revensfire. The 'Abuse of Wikipedia' report was only uploaded five minutes before I posted here, just a few hours ago. They are referring to the Expendable Project, which is in fact a reliable source. It is the host of the biggest cache of government FOI data, as obtained directly by the Corby family themselves. The very fact that this source is being undermined on that talk page is a further manifestation of the problem, and another indication why there is no way forward through that route.

I agree with the author, that it is essential that an investigation is timely, thorough, and wholly independent from those involved in the documented abuses. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a fairly brief review, I don't think I would consider the EP a reliable source under Wikipedia requirements. It's definitely an advocacy site though. I don't see anything wrong using the information to help find good sources or for talk page discussions (please! Remember WP:BLP applies on the talk page too!) but using EP itself as a source or directly referencing anything on the site is, I think, problematic. Ravensfire (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read more of the comments above, about unreliable sources, I now realize I have wasted my time. The reference information cited is in fact government documentation, obtained through FOI requests, and posted directly online as part of a database, because the Australian media has not reported it. Yet it is genuine, and it is undisputed.

According to the "reliable sources" argument being pushed here, this can never be cited. Central ministerial correspondence, including from the Prime Minister, can never be referenced. For Wikipedia, it does not exist. Yet the article remains littered with outright smears, appalling fabrications, and direct lies, from top to bottom.

For the record, I read the report very carefully before I brought it to your attention. There are no smears against editors at all. It shows that the contents of that article have been wilfully created, and the thrust of the page protected. I suspect this will become even more apparent when the second part of the report is published.

I will inform the author that my efforts to have these serious issues addressed internally have failed, and to proceed as he intended. Perhaps I was naive in considering that this information would be received in the spirit it was submitted, and that the pressing need to address such a serious matter would trump what appears to be a very closed and political world.

Please feel free to delete my posts and delete my account. I apologize for any inconvenience. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you mean by "I will inform the author that my efforts to have these serious issues addressed internally have failed, and to proceed as he intended"? Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One additional note: First, we would never accept FOI documents from a third party source that was not itself certainly reliable, as we do not know that the alleged reports are authentic. Second, and more importantly, government reports fall under WP:PRIMARY, and thus can only be used to state exactly what they say. While I am only somewhat familiar with the subject, my understanding is that a variety of advocacy sites including the Expendable Project, have woven together these many government reports into a narrative that asserts a vast conspiracy against Corby. While there may well have been a vast conspiracy against her (again, I don't know enough to say), we certainly would never state such a thing without a reliable source verifying it, and we would have to be careful to attribute it and to pay attention to WP:WEIGHT (and possibly even WP:FRINGE). Again, no offense to that project, but especially in the case of living people, we must work with only top quality, secondary, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my to-do items is to write an essay on "Things that make sense, even if they don't sound sensible" One of the items on that list relates to Primary documents. Many naive editors will assume that tertiary sources are the weakest, secondary sources better, and primary sources the gold standard. After all, why use something filtered through the lens of someone else, when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth. I can understand this thought process, but it is flawed. Dr.J.Hedley seems to have made the same mistake, recoiling on horror that primary sources are being ignored. However, they aren't being ignored because Wikipedia editors are engaged in a conspiracy against Schappelle Corby, they are being ignored because the community has considered the question many times over many years and determined that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, secondary sources are better. Journalists prefer primary sources, and that makes sense. So find a reputable journalist, feed them the primary sources, and if they choose to write about it, we can cite them. If they choose not to, feel free to assume they are part of the conspiracy, even if it simply means they find the sources uncompelling.

I am concerned that in saying that there has been "serious long term abuse of a Wikipedia article", our new doctor friend is taking a broad negative swipe at all the editors who have contributed to making the Schappelle Corby article what it is today. I can assure the good doctor that most if not all of those editors have acted in good faith. His posts, while couched in absurdly polite language, are effectively attacks on all those editors. I don't think that's acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report's recommendations include deleting the page and reconstructing it, suspending editors involved pending a "thorough investigation", and it implies (at least by my interpretation of that final page) that editor's identities be revealed (which is all very ironic given the Expendable Project's insistence on their anonymity). --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Kimpatriciabax (talk · contribs) ran a campaign against various Wikipedia editors involved in this article on her 'Women for Schappelle' blog a while ago, which from memory included some pretty nasty language. Hopefully this doesn't end up the same way. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bax is closely associated with the Expendable Project. --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about closing ranks. That page is an absolute disgrace, and that is plain to see.

Doc H, and his mate's Wikipedia abuse report, have nothing to do with Kim Bax or even the Expendable Project, which just holds data from the Howard gov. But they will not see that. All they want is an excuse to pretend everything is okay, or at least that is what some of them want. It is much easier than facing the seriousness of the abuses on that page.

You can see plainly how he tried to get someone to look at this properly and quietly, without this sort of train wreck. Even those involved in the abusive editing are now trolling over here to weigh in and protect the smearing status quo.

If you read this Doc, take my advice. Forget it. Apart from the reaction you have seen, there is a basic flaw which is part of this. You can wave signed letters from Prime Ministers and others all you want, but it doesn't matter one jot. It doesn't matter that they are not, and cannot be, disputed.

Wikipedia only reflects what the mainstream media produces. Oz media smears, with zero/zip/zod to back them up, are presented here as facts. It is that last bit which is so destructive. It is presented as some sort of authority, when it is really just an extension of the mainstream media, which in Oz is smear on this case, and others, btw.

You have some killer points in your mate's report, which they can't refute. But I would add something about their refusal to accept black and white documentation direct from government, and I would change the end to show that they won't even listen when they are nailed on some irrefutable smears. You are better off mitigating the crap on that page by publishing your mate's report more widely.

Soz to be negative, but that page will stay the disgrace it is. Deleting my post simply re-enforces my arguement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 226.136.108.66 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am not going to get involved in what appears to be a futile exercise.

The abuse report is absolutely correct. Yet at best, internal minutiae is being pitched at a higher priority than any semblance of factual representation in this hugely damaging article. Indeed, even the removal of openly slanderous and partially defamatory commentary is dismissed. The mere suggestion of addressing long term editorial abuse appears to be scoffed at, as somehow insulting, which is equally disappointing.

An issue of this gravity should surely be considered at the highest possible level within the Wikipedia hierarchy, but I am sure this will not occur. It is a great pity that there isn't a private route to advise of such serious abuses, as it was perhaps inevitable that others would feel a degree of peer affinity with those responsible. It was only my intention to notify an appropriate party of this situation, in the hope that the issues would be addressed objectively and quietly, and without confrontation.

I will pass on your comments to the author, anonymous, but I certainly won't return. I should also add, with regret, that I will not view Wikipedia material in the same way again, following this rather unpleasant experience. But more regrettable, of course, is any damage caused to the welfare of Schapelle Corby and her family, through continued distribution of patently false information.

As I understand it, if I log-out and never log-in again, this renders my account effectively closed. If that is not the case, could someone please assist by deleting? Thank you. Dr.J.Hedley (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a futile enterprise, and no, nothing will be done on the basis of that "report". You should give up, as you announced you were doing on your user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boise Kimber

Boise Kimber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zimapr (talk · contribs)

Help appreciated, as my continued involvement here could be construed as edit warring. At play are two entirely divergent versions of the biography, one sourced and largely negative, the other rather promotional. Perhaps a balance can be struck, but the most recent edits suggest that balance is not the goal. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always suggest laying out your grievances on the article talk page before taking other actions. It helps both admins and non-admin noticeboard volunteers (like me) follow the progression of issues. With that said, it seems like this is a clear case of someone trying to whitewash a BLP, which is unacceptable. I believe that a compromise version could be created without using non-free content. I'll keep this on my watchlist and ask Zimapr if (s)he would please respond. Andrew (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like to use the article talk page, too, but quickly ascertained that would be useless in this case. Zimapr has also been mentioned at the edit warring noticeboard, and has ignored warnings, preferring to whitewash the article rather than engage in dialogue. Notwithstanding their desire to own the article, I don't see why the piece can't be rewritten with respect to some of their concerns. Trouble is, they also persist in adding copyright violations, which complicates integrating new content into the article. Next step is to request page protection, with a possible short term block to allow for reversion and revision. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the other editor was interfering with progress on the article, and the admins will issue more blocks should they become necessary. At this point, you should be free to bring the article back to a consensus state. Andrew (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Gable

Would the webpage Searchlight & the State be considered sufficiently reliable for making accusations of criminal activity against Gerry Gable? The webpage contains an anonymously authored article taken from KSL: Bulletin of the Kate Sharpley Library No. 28, October 2001. The Bulletin itself appears to be an intermittently printed pamphlet - the issue in question can be seen in its entirety here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Gable's conviction for illegally entering David Irving's home? If it helps: that point is also substantiated by the following reference: Evening Standard, December 14, 1993, Pg. 8: "In 1964, however, [Gable] was fined £34 by Highbury Magistrates, after impersonating a GPO engineer to gain access to the home of the revisionist historian David Irving." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Sharpley library reference is sufficient for such charges in a BLP. I've reverted it for the nonce, both because I don't think the source is sufficiently reliable and also because a statement by a counsel is definitely not appropriate - lawyers say all sorts of things and we would have to have a very good reason to include such a statement in a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to remove the bit about lawyers' statements -- but since I provided a reference that would normally not cause concerns re WP:RS I see no reason for the other elements to be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs with no linked sources

Please see Mohd. Masood Ahmed and Ali Mandalawi. Neither of these BLPs has a linked source, merely external links (despite what the heading says) which does not validate any of the claims made in the article. My attempts at BLPPRODing both of these articles have been reverted with the claim that they are sourced, even though, as I said, the external links do not validate the claims made in the articles. Am I correct in putting the BLPPROD template on these articles? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, although I can understand the mistake. BLPPROD is a very narrow tool, and even external links, such as the interviews with Ali Mandalawi in the external links, verify basic existence and perhaps profession of the article subject. (Far from sufficient for a decent article, but enough to pass BLPPROD.) Some attempts have been made to make BLPPROD a stronger tool, but so far no such proposals have reached a consensus of editors.

I do note that the section Ali_Mandalawi#Work_experience_and_activities looks like a copyright violation (close paraphrasing) from [5] and at least some of that should be removed/rewritten on that basis.

As far as deletion, if you believe Mandalawi (as an example) to be non-notable or insufficiently verified, the next step is WP:AFD. Let me know if I can explain further. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a BLP which only has external links which do not support any of the claims made in the article is perfectly acceptable? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should remove any information in the article that is not supported by the sources. You just can't delete the entire article with the prod template based on false statements. The solution is to fix the article, not delete it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I should blank the whole article? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because much of the content is supported by the sources listed. Why do you keep claiming that the sources don't validate any of the claims in the articles when they obviously do? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomin Thachankary

This article was brought to my attention via OTRS; upon review of the complaints it became apparent that there were several valid BLP concerns - namely that some of the sources were dead links and there were criminal allegations made with no convictions secured (which falls under WP:BLPCRIME). I stubbed the article in order to remove the problematic material, but was reverted by the article creator. The material was again removed citing BLP concerns and I left a note on the creator's talk page, only to again have the information restored with the dead links etc. To be honest, when you remove the allegations I'm not sure whether the BLP subject even meets notability requirements. I had requested that Pectore raise the issue here to gain consensus for restoring the material but will be away most of the day so I decided to make a note here myself requesting review of the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the archived article, no charges let alone a conviction. I would say delete or userfy. If he is ever charged we can bring up an undelete discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected. Edit waring BLP removals is unacceptable. Feel free to unprotect if there's agreement on what do to next.--Scott Mac 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can admin slap a prod tag on it? Fully protected and not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm ,probably not. I'd need to unprotect it to allow that, because people are free to remove prod tags to indicate they want it kept. I suspect, in this case, that's quite likely.--Scott Mac 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we seek consensus on deletion while it is still protected through AfD?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against it, although it's generally discouraged due to the Streisand effect and also the fact that the original BLP matters are likely to be brought up again during AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Plan A: Rev-del the archive, unprotect as it stands, possibly rev-del the talk page as well. Both violate blp. After un-protection then AfD and be very careful about using poorly sourced statements. Plan B: Have an AfD discussion here or the talk page. Without good sources there is nothing notable. If things change then notablity requiremnts may be met. Plan C: A bold admin should just delete or userfy it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator. I attempted to discuss the content of said article on the talk page, only to have Ponyo revert my edits without justification from any policy (my apologies if you believe merely linking to a Wikipolicy ad nauseam is enough to claim someone else is violating it). I have no control over what random political chatter-bot anon editors write on the page. However I went straight to talk after making a bold content addition. As demonstrated on the talk page, I have made a good faith effort to discuss content issues, assuming incorrectly that I was dealing with an editor attempting to better the page. Those thoughts expired after my edits adding new and cited information were summarily reverted under dubious justification. Thachankary has been charged wrt "his unauthorised foreign visit and a Vigilance case relating to amassing of disproportionate wealth." and furthermore, he is not only notable for the charges against him, but also for the fact that this became a scandal that cost him a job, and heightened the rift between the two major political parties in Kerala. This scandal is quite notable in Indian news (as a simple Google search, or a look at the page before it was blanked would indicate).Pectore^talk 06:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pectore, the reason that the same policy was pointed out to you several times is because you were edit-warring to restore the inappropriate content that I had removed based as on a valid OTRS complaint. I was clear on both your talk page and on the article talk page as to what specific issues led to the removal of the contentious content. Two of the references were dead/404 links and, per WP:BLPCRIME we do not create articles on a BLP subject who is only alleged to have committed a crime. This does not mean that there can never be any negative material included in the Thachankary article, only that in order to meet BLP policy the sources must be iron-clad and the allegations should not be included unless a conviction is secured. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem. Your sources may be accepted in India as reliable, but not to other en:wp editors. If a respected english source such as ~~The~~ a London Daily(?) or New York Times reported it, then it would be accepted here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu and the Hindustan Times are no less English than The New York Times, not that Englishness matters anyway. And in over half a century living in and around London I have never heard of The London Daily. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger is correct; it was not the origin of the newspapers that resulted in the removal of the first sentence. The links used to support the first sentence did not support the content - one redirected to the current issue of the website edition and the was a 404. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is the issue that the contentious or 'notable' material comes bad sources and the good sources haven't reported it? I think I made my above statement a little more clear as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Canoe, that is not the issue. As demonstrated on the talk page (and it is quite telling that Ponyo has not responded there, choosing instead to forum shop), the article text under my version was sourced to well-known and reliable sources, and furthermore was faithful (and in fact more conservative) than the text. Next, WP:BLPCRIME does not prevent an article being created on someone who is both accused and charged with crimes, and the center of a political scandal. Instead it states "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information", which unsurprisingly is exactly what my conservative and well-sourced wording is doing. The point here is that Ponyo revert-warred on the page, and vandalized content based on a crude misunderstanding of WP:BLPCRIME, and is now wasting productive time by wikilawyering and refusing to discuss the actual content of the sources. Lastly, I do not see the point of discussing things on both the noticeboard and the talk page. This is an annoying diversion from my desire to build the page so that it is a well-sourced center of information on this obviously notable individual.Pectore^talk 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You consider bringing an OTRS issue regarding a biography of a living person to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard for review forum shopping? As the creator of the article you are quite clearly not neutral regarding the subject - having uninvolved editors review and discuss the content with an eye to ensuring that our BLP policy is met is necessary to determine consensus. Calling me a vandal (which is a personal attack by the way) will get the community no closer to a balanced and fair article regarding Tomin Thachankary. As an OTRS volunteer I have no obligation to rewrite the content of the article; I have reviewed a ticket in relation to content and found it violated Wikipedia policy. I removed the violations and brought the article to the attention of this noticeboard when you restored the content. Now the community will decide what information, if any, should be included in the article and what sources should be used to support the material. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Delhi gang rape case

Although the article is legitimate and important, it could raise some BLP issues e.g. in relation to naming of suspects, particularly since it is likely to attract a lot of attention in the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection has been activated and there are many people watching it, including me. Is there anything in particular that concerns you? Andrew (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

I am sure this is a BLP violation,[6] but should like another opinion. The edit names a BLP. To support the text is a leaked document from wikileaks which I feel sure is a nono for stuff about BLP's, the second (FP) does not name the BLP at all. Am I correct in this being a BLP issue? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one to me - not named in the FP and using a single primary unofficially leaked private document to support such a clam is undue indeed - Per WP:PRIMARY I will remove it - I thought it was decided we wouldn't use wikileaks stolen republished claimed real memos anyways, they are clealy primary and not reliable for said reasons Youreallycan 14:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Youreallycan, The quote is actually from the Foreign Policy article, and the link to the original quote is linked in that article. This is why I put both up. Hence not a case of a primary source being the source of the citation. The other link I make to the primary source is just corroborative, and adds the detail that the citation originates from the Ambassador--the FP article only cites the US State Department. Here is the quote from FP: "A U.S. State Department cable from February 2010 published by WikiLeaks bolsters the critics' concerns, noting that "there is little doubt that hard-line elements within the ruling party [AL] believe that the time is right to crush Jamaat and other Islamic parties." The relevant discussion on this has taken place on my user page here: [7]. I thought the views of Monty and Moonriddengirl allowed me to reinstate the citation--I still think it does. As a compromise, I will remove the citation of the Ambassador, and reinstate the citation using only FP's quote. Aminul802 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not, as that is a BLP violation. The FP sourced does not mention the ambassador does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this quote appears in the Foreign Policy article (though it is not attributed to Moriarty there). I am not sure why it is perceived that there was only a primary source for it. However, if it is to be restored, it should probably omit Moriarty's name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what I proposed. Sorry about the citation of the Ambassador in the beginning. Didn't realise WikiLeaks had BLP restrictions. Thanks for the clarification. Best, Aminul802 (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Friedman

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

Moshe Friedman page on wikipedia - need help on the page. Friedman is regarded as a major extremist with no support and has personal problems, legal issues and has been excommunicated. Need help with the page. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you think is currently wrong with the article. You've blanked large sections of it, and it's not obvious that there were good reasons for doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there have been some sock puppet involvement and other editors have been blocked; but it does appear there might be some dispute resolution requirements here, as well as some BLP policy violations which might arise again; but a quick review it looks good at the current rev. Also note that this IP editor has been WP:FORUMSHOPING. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted> Thought you were a sock or wp:weasel, sorry for not wp:agf --Canoe1967 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Kortz

The article is of very low encyclopedic value and was created as a mean of promoting his own reasearch and research group. The so called "highlights" are written in a very biased way, overemphasizing on the importance of the polyoxometallates in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject to determine if it is notable. I just added an expert attention requested tag to the BLP and I hope that someone else on the BLPN is a chemist. Andrew (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article does not meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. This person is a professor at a private university with a student body of 1450 students. Besides, he has not made any significant breakthrough in his area of research, his work was once characterized by his peer reviewers as "straightforward" and lacking novelty (it was mentioned in a personal correspondence). Furthermore, as you can see by the recent vandalism on his biography, he is not very warmly accepted in the polyoxometallate commmunity and his biography can stir unnecessary negative excitement and work as batllegrounds for scientific egos. Therefore, I think a deletion will be the best solution of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.116.117 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jo Pender

This article seems to be extremely biased in favor of Pender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.130.37 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this BLP could use improvements, but is there anything specific that you think ought to be changed? The Talk page doesn't have any detail either, and the history doesn't appear to have anybody who's owning the page or edit warring. Feel free to be bold and make changes that you think are appropriate. Andrew (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Massimino

I just reverted this user on another page for copyvio, and when I went to his talk page found multiple warnings for copyvio. I'm considering an indefinite block until he shows an understanding of this problem and am looking at his contributions. He specialises in BLPs on crime family members, and I'd appreciate it if someone would check the sources here as they don't seem to confirm the statements where they are cited. In addition, "Massimino was indicted by a New Jersey State Grand Jury with several other defendants with various crimes including racketeering, loansharking, promoting gambling, and conspiracy" is not sourced from reference 1 but from the 3rd reference (and is copyvio from that). I'm not sure what's going on here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Olivetto - all the sources here appear rubbish. And what's this? Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Previte - I was wondering about the unsourced stuff about the air force and his physique - it's copyvio from [8]. What we seem to have is a bunch of articles possibly all about notable and unpleasant people, but both badly sourced and copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some investigation of the Joseph Massimino and finding minimal sourcing, per WP:CRIME I redirected it to Philadelphia crime family. It does appear that there are a whole lotta articles that are written in the "true crime" style rather than encyclopedia form and approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for Dominick Olivetto i found no reliable sources supporting the claims and so removed them and then since the non controversial claims are that he is a citizen of Philly, PROD for non notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also did some more work on the Previte article. He has both the 60 Minutes piece and a book about him so notability in this instance is not an issue, just copyright and tone of the article, and I think both are OK now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morgan

This is regarding the wiki biography of AM that appears to be edited particularly by someone that lists only positive attributes regarding this player and it fails to offer a more multi-dimensional or more inclusive biography of her. First and foremost, the FIFA 2011 world cup lists that she helped the team to gain the second place position, but it fails to acknowledge that Japan won the world cup 2011 it did not even bother to mention the score in that case. Secondly, the article is biased in that there are so many other soccer players on the national team that have more experience than her and have scored more yet have received less attention, particularly several of the other less well-known players that helped to score the win against japan in the Olympics. In addition, i also believe that this article is rather biased because it does not mention that her fame or recent fame can very much be attributed to her sexualization in the media and in magazines of her in bikinis.

For an article to simply render her fame based entirely on her athletic attributes is misleading because there are many other female soccer players that have achieved more and barely receive any attention in the media. An example of a a similar athlete is Lolo Jones, who achieved quite a few medals in her career but many have compared her to other players with the same stats and caliber and agree that she would not have received the fame and attention hat she did had it not been for her looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.207.252 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - bit of a long rambling post - but I will have a look - can you direct me to specific content that is in violation of WP:BLP - regards - Youreallycan 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Coppens

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

Whoever wrote this only got his date of death right and the fact he died from a rare cancer, all the rest is about someone totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.3.200 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Philip Coppens. I have moved the original article to Philip Coppens (chemist). The original page can become a disambiguation page as soon as somebody writes a properly sourced article about the author who died today. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP posted about "Phillip Coppens". Since we didn't have an article with that spelling, I changed it above to Philip. Not sure how a disambiguation page would play given the difference in spellings, but it's a detail we should make sure is right if someone does start an article on Phillip. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody changed this article by combining the BLP of the chemist (born in the 30s) with the biography of the author (born 1971) who died of a rare form of cancer today. His name is also spelt "Philip Coppens" and here is his home page.[9] His death is reported here.[10] After a short check, I could not find any independent sources with which to write a biography of the author. However, obituaries could appear in the near future, possibly in the Dutch press. Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Coppens (author) most of which was copyvio from his official webpage and which I deleted. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Doug! Somebody else has meanwhlle created a rudimentary stub bio Philip Coppens (author), without any of the copyvio problems. I have changed Philip Coppens to a dab. I am not sure of the author's notability outside alternative history circles. (Was he born in Belgium? Did he spend time in North Berwick? [11]) Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roslyn Kind

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

Just resolve this section if it has been beaten to death before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princella Smith

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

Needs copy edit mostly. Possible UNDUE and RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Nusbacher

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

This BLP covers a person who may have changed gender status and name. Two users seem intent on outing them by posting items on the article and talk page. Could someone take a look and see if we need to refactor some of this? I'm concerned we're using unreliable sources to out a living person. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that Nusbacher prefers this aspect of her history not to be discussed publicly? In the abstract, a sex change is nothing shameful. We ought to treat it as private if it hasn't been widely covered in secondary sources, and especially if the subject wants it to be treated as private. Where do things stand in those terms? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. Giant Snowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been dealt with: [12] The private medical and personal aspects shouldn't be included for obvious reasons, but the subject's highly notable and widely covered previous identity is appropriate for inclusion. There is no rational, policy-based reason to exclude the former name when the person appeared on television and authored notable books under that name. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are no WP:RS which confirms the sex change. The Sun is definitely not reliable. Giant Snowman 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you google [aryeh nusbacher lynette] you will find countless references. The wikipedia article states that until 2006 her books were published under her former name. And her own website is tagged with "Aryeh Nusbacher". So this does not seem to be a secret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem necessary to provide sources here when Insomesia is the only editor who is having trouble finding them. There are sources in the article now; there is the source he tendentiously reverted yesterday with a phony edit summary, and there is even a RS mentioned on the Talk page that covers the actual gender change. This is beginning to smell like WP:IDHT. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Nusbacher has verified with OTRS that she is User:NetNus. The evidence that she wants this to be private can be found at Special:Contributions/NetNus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP griped about the redirect here,[13] so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could say "It", if you prefer. Meanwhile, you need to figure out a way to draw a line between Aryeh's disappearance in 2006 and Lynette's emergence in 2007, and whether either one qualifies as being "notable". Got anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll make this as simple as possible. There are articles by/about 'Aryeh Nusbacher'. There are articles by/about 'Lynette Nusbacher'. There are no articles (that I can see) confirming they are the same person. Please read WP:BURDEN and then provide some WP:RS so we can WP:V this. If reliable sources cannot be found then any and all references to 'Aryeh' will be removed from the article on Lynette. Giant Snowman 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is sourcing to connect the two identities. First compare this [14] with this [15]. And here is a mainstream news media source covering the "transition": [16] ► Belchfire-TALK 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:OR to compare the website past & present, and are IBL News 'mainstream' (or more importantly reliable?) Giant Snowman 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly with GS on this, given the post from Phil Bridger about OTRS identification etc. It stays out unless there is a consensus to put it in, something obviously lacking now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need two separate articles, with a dividing line between 2006 and 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Amazon lists a number of books under Aryeh,[17] including some that are claimed in the Lynette article to be written by Lynette. If wikipedia is going to pretend these are two separate persons, then we can't claim authorship by Lynett when the published author was Aryeh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely as a FYI Phil: Wikipedia:ANI#BLP_redirect_for_delete_and_salt. KTC (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further FYI is that the redirect was created over 2 years ago,[18] with a rather matter-of-fact explanation for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading your IPW essay. No "perhaps" about it. This is definitely a conflict of interest situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on strong sourcing for a BLP is simply following policy, please AGF. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It baffled me too, until a user in this section confirmed that this Lynette is trying to mold the article based on a personal agenda rather than on observable facts. I thought that kind of thing was against the rules. So I'm still a bit baffled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of sex-change/name w/o consensus

The fact of sex-change and previous name has been restored. It's fine that there's a better source for it, but the existence of a source is not sufficient. WP:BLP makes it clear that edits of this sort require consensus, which is manifestly lacking. Key passage: write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" -- something that obviously comes into play per Phil Bridger's posts above about OTRS identification and Nusbacher's own expressed preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boldness is my method. Once people see a very good source such as Palgrave then consensus comes quickly. I think the new source is the final nail in this discussion; that it is indeed sufficient.

Regarding privacy of the individual; we are not talking about a reclusive scholar about whom any revelation is hurtful. Rather, we are talking about a person who sought the public light—who appeared repeatedly on television programs and taught the royal princes at Sandhurst, a very prominent school. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to replace the surname with the correct pronoun, "she", where appropriate. I don't think that that's a matter under dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, we can -- but what about should? And what about the bit that says consensus is required for this sort of edit? I'm frankly pretty surprised at how this is going. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you are surprised—the Palgrave source came out of the blue. However, the new source was a game-changer; it was the sword that cut the Gordian knot. As such, any restoration of text based on the new source did not require consensus: at WP:BLP, the section called "Restoring deleted content" tells us that "if [disputed text] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Of course you can see we had "significant change" because of the new Palgrave tertiary source, based on work by scholarly editors led by William Rubinstein. The guideline says that the burden of proof is on the person who restores text. I think I supplied ample proof with the Palgrave book. Please forgive me for not pausing to form consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the royal princes out of this. Nusbacher chose to teach at Sandhurst, but I'm sure she didn't choose her students. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Montgomery High School

I've cleaned up the alumni list; if there are other specific issues they could be listed here or on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was also thinking of the bit about charges against a school principal that take up more space than the decision that they weren't and the bit about criticism of the County Schools superintendent, and also the bit about the student newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Waterways, Canal & River Trust

Hi. I am concerned about recent edits from 109.68.196.1 to British Waterways and Canal & River Trust. They allege wrongdoing and name an individual. Expert help please? At present I have just reverted them but of course they're still there in the edit histories. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the IP at the rev-del IRC. They should deal with it soon as there were quite a few logged in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I have since added the IRC link to the top of this page. Just hit the little green connect button and follow instructions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, brilliant, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Rawlings

MarkMysoe (talk · contribs)

Someone should carefully follow the contributions of Mark Mysoe to the biography of Jerry Rawlings and other articles. He uses Wikipedia to promote ethnic conflict between his Akan tribe and the other tribes of Ghana. This goes to the point that former Ghanaian president Jerry Rawlings is repeatedly called a Togolese, his (now governing) party NDC a "Togolese" party, etcetera. In other articles than biographies he replaces the name "Ghana" by "Akanland" and calls most other inhabitants of Ghana "illegal immigrants". DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akufo-Addo

Nana Akufo-Addo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography is about a leading politician of Ghana. A contribution by Mark Mysoe makes him the leader of a fictitious country "Akanland". This is part of a strategy of Mark Mysoe to contribute nonsense about this fantasy-born country to many articles. As this may cause ethnic conflict in Ghana, Wikipedia should prevent him from doing so. DrMennoWolters (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akanland is fictional?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- MarkMysoe (talk · contribs)

There does seem to be some issues there - poor sourcing - cites used that do not mention Arkland at all, worthy of investigating imo - Is Arkanland an historic area or a modern reality or what? Youreallycan 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akanland is a name for the southern region of Ghana. The Akan tribe makes up a majority of the population of that area. There seems to be a movement of unknown size within that area for either autonomy or independence. I'm looked through a large subset of User:MarkMysoe's recent contributions; he seems to be on a mission to bring about Akanland's autonomy or independence through the massive editing of Wikipedia articles. A couple of example edits :

[19] -- breaking at least one URL, and making the University of Education, Winneba into a vanguard of Akanland advancement.

[20] (two edits) -- removing any reference to Ghana from the article about the city of Bibiani (including the removal of references).

-- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the User:MarkMysoe about this thread on his userpage - Youreallycan 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I had assumed that DrMennoWolters had, but as the old saying about "assume" goes... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It soon becasme clear this this users contributions are the only thing at issue in regards to the multiple reports about Arkn - has is the creator (in sept 2012) and only contributor to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Akan - Youreallycan 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a serious problem. It would appear that this report is the tip of the iceberg, and that there is an underlying campaign by Mark to re-write history by slowly converting mentions of Ghana into Akanland.

This is not the first time I've had trouble with this user. I must admit that I rolled my eyes when I read above about the use of poor sources which do not actually mention the subject - this is a hallmark of Mark's editing. The only other place I've interacted with him was at Kevin-Prince Boateng, which Mark has consistently tried to turn into a fanboy magazine article. There, he has often used simple bio pages which mention Boateng's name as carte blanche to write his own personal pundit-esque commentary about Boateng's playing style. A good example would be the commentary on his playing style in the "International career" section of the article in this edit. When I investigated, most of the claims made in that section turned out not to be in the sources he used. The same is true of this edit, where he adds superficially sourced trivia about Boateng's goal celebrations, which turn out not to be mentioned in the source. Or then there's this edit, which introduces a section on nicknames which is sourced, but when investigated the source doesn't contain any of the claimed nicknames. The list goes on and I could provide more examples.

This is serious abuse of process. It's difficult to peer into Mark's troubled past because he selectively archives his talk page, blanking criticism entirely in the name of cleaning up the page, whilst keeping a nominal "archive" page to make his talk page history appear continuous. This week, for example, he's removed several requests to stop this Akan nonsense from other editors within hours of them being placed (contrast this with the solitary barn star he's ever received, which has been kept on his talk page like a medal since June). Mark's had trouble with others over these sorts of issues before and, to be completely honest, I really don't think he's doing the project any good. Most of his editing contains serious problems requiring cleanup, if not complete removal. This particular report simply highlights the latest crusade of Mark's, on which he's happy to mislead others and rankly flaunt the rules in order to add his own original research to articles. The worst part is that all of this has been pointed out to him several times before, by a multitude of other editors at various venues, and yet he refuses to get the point. His editing attitude is particularly damaging because he's prolific and does an awful lot of editing in areas which are often poorly watched, and can end up causing a lot of issues before anyone even notices (this is particularly evident in this most recent example). I think the time has come to cut our losses, play damage control and indefinitely block Mark to stop this kind of disruption. If no one can bring themselves to do this, then I think an RfC/U is unavoidable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This substitution of Akanland for Ghana has been going on for some time - I raised it on MM's talk page in September 2012, and I thought I had taken it to ANI but can't find it in the ANI archives. There is also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Africa#User:_MarkMysoe. PamD 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to go to ANI so cleanup efforts can proceed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. I am out of the house at the moment editing on my phone and so I can't really formulate a proper report at ANI, but I will do it when I'm back. Alternatively, someone else can do it and I'll add my thoughts when I can. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About to be done, wholeheartedly scandalized by the f*%ked-up mess this user is making, what's more it's not just trivial fanboy stuff but stuff to set off ethnic rioting - at Jerry Rawlings I have just removed the cats: Togolese mercenaries, Scottish mercenaries, Genocide perpetrators, 20th and 21st century criminals and Military dictatorships. Also fixed some stuff in the info box claiming his religion was Voodoo amongst other things.

The text is really fucked up though, he has systematically added Togolese, mercenary and Akan (instead of Ghana) wherever x/he can. Post the link to ANI as soon as I'm through, please check the user's contribs to help with the clean-up and weigh-in over at ANI if you have any experience of this "freedom fighter". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus beat me to it while I was partially reverting the Jerry Rawlings bio. For the diuscussion at ANI, click here! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.

A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case.

In the Nana Akufo-Addo subject, Nana Akufo-Addo is an Akan and a ethnic national of Akanland and is from Eastern Akanland, for example it is exampled by Olusegun Obasanjo who is a Yoruba and ethnic national of Yorubaland where it can be mentioned that Olusegun Obasanjo is from Yorubaland in the article header. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden

Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article needs urgent attention. The person is definitely notable, but the current content appears to have been written almost entirely from a negative angle and it probably libelous. I am not personally able to assist with this review due to lack of knowledge of the person, the subject or time to get up to speed on it. PeterEastern (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the recent IP addition made in a single edit - and left him a link ot this discussion - his addition gets a lot of returns give it the appearance of cut and copy paste from the web - diff of the IPS single edit - Youreallycan 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. Apologies for possibly over-reacting - I didn't even check that it wasn't a recent single incidence of vandalism before posting here. Anyway, the article is now well sorted now, thanks. I have also added a couple of references for good measure. PeterEastern (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't an over reaction - apart from the mere mention of libel/ legal that can cause pricked ears here in regard avoidance of WP:NLT - thanks for the report. I have issues regarding the subjects WP:Notability but as he clearly is a real person and any violating content has been removed I will leave that to other users specialist in wiki notability - regards - Youreallycan 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Zahedi

This person has no merits that would call for an article about him on WIKIPEDIA! That seems nevertheles to be a good reason for Wikipedia to allow this creature to celebrate his "profusely significant existance" in this selfcongratulatry fashion. WONDERFUL refernce for Wikipedia indeed, if every entirely banal Dick Tom and Harry can set himself a memorial here, what will come of this platform??? — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.48.157 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address had made three edits - the first to vandalize the Biography diff that cluebot removed - and one post the same rant on here on the BLP talkpage, I removed that rant - no comment on the alleged limited notability of the subject but we have WP:AFD process to nominate articles for deletion and if anyone would like my help with that please let me know - Youreallycan 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has also been vandalizing the German article. 87.142.48.157, there are 4,133,462 other articles in English Wikipedia that you may prefer. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 477: / Line 477: @@
 ::The text is really fucked up though, he has systematically added Togolese, mercenary and Akan (instead of Ghana) wherever x/he can. Post the link to ANI as soon as I'm through, please check the user's contribs to help with the clean-up and weigh-in over at ANI if you have any experience of this [[Wikipedia:TRUTH|"freedom fighter"]]. <b>[[User:Captain Screebo|<font color="B22222">Captain</font><font color="DAA520">Screebo</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Captain_Screebo|<font color="32CD32">Parley!</font>]]</sup></b> 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 *Maunus beat me to it while I was partially reverting the Jerry Rawlings bio. For the diuscussion at ANI, [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkMysoe_making_the_Akanland_region_of_Ghana_independent_overnight|click here!]] <b>[[User:Captain Screebo|<font color="B22222">Captain</font><font color="DAA520">Screebo</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Captain_Screebo|<font color="32CD32">Parley!</font>]]</sup></b> 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
+::* Akanland is a historic country of the [[Akan people]], the Akan people [[Ethnic nationalism|ethnic nationalis]] agreed to a [[Treaty|state treaty]] with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see [[:File:African-civilizations-map-pre-colonial.svg|here]]) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a [[state union]] was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a [[state union]] with the [[Mossi people]] historic country known as the [[Mossi Kingdoms|Kingdom of Mossi]] then named to [[Northern Territories]] (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see [[:File:WestAfrica1530.png|here]]) and the [[Ewe people]] historic country [[Togoland]] then named [[British Togoland]] and [[French Togoland]] (now known as [[Togo]] and [[Volta Region]]) within Ghana (see [[:File:Togoland.png|here]], [[:File:League of Nations mandate Middle East and Africa.png|here]], [[:File:Colonial Africa 1913 Togoland map.svg|here]] and [[:File:Togoland.png|here]]). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a [[state union]] in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called [[Ghana Empire]]. The "Ghana" [[state union]] is a example of the [[state union]] of [[Serbia and Montenegro]], Montenegro decided to break their [[state union]] with Serbia in 2006 with a [[independence referendum]] and the country [[Serbia and Montenegro]] is now the countries [[Serbia]] and [[Montenegro]].
+:::A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a [[state union]] in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case.
+:::In the Nana Akufo-Addo subject, Nana Akufo-Addo is an Akan and a [[Ethnic nationalism|ethnic national]] of Akanland and is from Eastern Akanland, for example it is exampled by [[Olusegun Obasanjo]] who is a [[Yoruba people|Yoruba]] and [[Ethnic nationalism|ethnic national]] of [[Yorubaland]] where it can be mentioned that [[Olusegun Obasanjo]] is from [[Yorubaland]] in the article header. [[User:MarkMysoe|MarkMysoe]] ([[User talk:MarkMysoe|talk]]) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 == Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden ==

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