Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Warren David

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

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

Autobiographical article, created and heavily edited by the subject. Violates NPOV, NOR, and possibly V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.73.100 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013‎

I've nominated for deletion; link above. JFHJr (㊟) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Leo Komarov and others

Komarov is a current NHL player who was born in 1987 in Narva. Here's the problem: Which should be used as Komarov's birth country? The Soviet Union or Estonia? IMHO, this problem covers all people born in countries, which no longer exists. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

He was born in the Estonian SSR of the Soviet Union. The fact that this is once again a free state is irrelevant to the circumstances at the time of his birth. This comes up all the time with my favorite topic, 19th-century Wisconsin legislators, many of whom were born in Congress Poland and the like. We stipulate where they were born as it was called at the time of their birth, piping the town name as necessary but using the name as spelled at the time; and if the name, country, has changed drastically, we add something like "(now known as Mumbai)" or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is dubious legality of the SSR, whereas the USSR was widely recognized. And Estonia existed before, (during - in theory) and after. Also, the Estonia article is a much better link than Estonian SSR for the reader. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We should use the name of the country was at the time of the birth. For association football players born in the late 80s in the former USSR, I tend to put 'Armenian SSR, Soviet Union' or 'Latvian SSR, Soviet Union' etc. GiantSnowman 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Latvia SSR has a dubious legality in international law. Also, we don't need to use SSR in the case of Latvia. There was a Latvia before and after the USSR, and it refers to the same place. The SSR article is about the history of the one republic, whereas the Latvia article is more comprehensive, making it a better choice. I'd rather use townname, Latvia (then USSR) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the country is titled Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, that is the name we should use. Same with Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic et al. GiantSnowman 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, it breaks down like this. Use Ukrainian SSR to differentiate itself from the Ukrainian PR, both of which were informally simply 'Ukraine' (and fought each other in civil war); which is subsequently the official name of the independent state. While 'Ukrainian SSR' is more accurate, 'Ukraine' is also acceptable nomenclature - just as 'East Germany' is what we use on articles and common use, and not 'German DR' (Soviets like to ethnicize state names, English likes to territorialize). As long as the pipelink goes to the correct 'era' of the state, then I personally think using the normative name is fine in place of the long form (also, for US states, note we also use the shortened, common use variants of the name).--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox person states: Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state, i.e. the state that held sovereignty over the administrative unit. It can be verified that reliable sources assert that the Soviet Union never acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it can't be "verified with reliable sources'. Arguing that the USSR didn't have authority / control over a region it occupied is just silly. Conversely, no state considered 'Estonia' to be a sovereign entity during this period, so as per Template:Infobox, "City, Estonia" cannot apply.--Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course the Soviet Union held sovereignty over Estonia in that time period. Wikipedia's own article leads with the statement "Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory." It's especially piquant in so far as that none of the several governments-in-exile were ever formally recognized as the legitimate government of Estonia (even de jure), and that Estonia's independence was regained over a year before the last head of the most enduring such group "surrendered his credentials" to the Estonian president. Ravenswing 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the US and a large number of nations did, indeed, recognize the exile government of Estonia. I would note your standard would hold that Germany "held sovereignty over" Poland etc. for quite a long period, and Japan "held sovereignty over" Korea for an even longer period that the USSR hald the Baltic states. Collect (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ravenswing, Lvivske, I've explained this to you before, perhaps WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I will explain it again.

Govt-in-exile played no role in preserving sovereignty (note that both Latvia and Lithuania did not have one), but rather it was the continued regcognition of diplomats who represented the Baltic states. See page 131 of D. W. Greig's book International law published in 1976:

"The United States and Britain have in the past consistently refused to recognise the Soviet seizure of the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940 and continued to accept the diplomats of those states as accredited representatives of a de jure sovereign state"

For a state to aquire sovereignty over a region requires international de jure recognition, otherwise it remains de facto control, i.e. occupation. There are entire books that discuss this aspect of the Baltic states, such as The Baltic Question During the Cold War by John Hiden of the University of Glasgow:

"This book focuses upon the foreign policy decision-making mechanisms which sustained the western non-recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic States after 1940."[1]

Subsequent court cases over property rights show that it this non-recognition was beyond the political sphere, it had commercial impact:

"For example, a UK court in a case concerning Estonia did not give legal effect to a nationalization decree of the Estonian SSR. As a result, ships that the Estonian SSR claimed a state corporation owned the UK court held remained in private hands."[2]

There are several ways in which a country can acquire sovereignty, see the article Acquisition of sovereignty for a summary, and the Soviet Union failed in all the applicable methods of via occupation of terra nullius, via conquest or via perscription. See Lauri Mälksoo, Illegal annexation and state continuity[3] on page 164:

"The above analysis leads to the conclusion that the USSR did not acquire legal title to the Baltic states by perscription"

and page 193:

"Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grat formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such it was, as a matter of international law, not terminated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was resetablished in 1991"

This view is corroborated by other sources:

"States may retain de jure (legal) status even without de facto control of territory, as when most states refused to recognise illegal annexations such as the 1940 Soviet takeover of the Baltic states, or Iraq's 1990 annexation of Kuwait, both reversed in 1991"[4]

There is no distinction made in RS between the illegal annexations of the Baltic states in 1940 or Kuwait in 1990. So in conclusion reliable sources of a scholarly standard do verify that the SOviet Union failed in achieving sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are 3 maps of the Soviet Union [5], [6] and [7], which clearly show Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as being within the USSR. More maps can be provided. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps anyone born in Texas, NM, AZ, etc. should be indicated as having been born in Mexico. Illegitimate spoils of war, & all. In other words, stupid dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, the international community, including Mexico, recognise US sovereignty over Texas, NM and AZ. --Nug (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That just shows the depths of the Mexican goverment's lackeyhood, and the extent to which everyone else bows to American hegemony. Might makes right, & all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

More realistically, if we were to follow Nug's guidelines for sovereignty and 'reliable sources', then every single Taiwanese bio would have to be changed to China from the current 'City, Taiwan' format. Crazy. All this amounts to is one big POV push, as saying "the West said X is illegal so that's all that matters globally & historically" is about as POVy as one can get.--Львівське (говорити) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not follow. Both Taiwan and PRC both officially support the One-China policy and Taiwan has never declared independence, in essence it is just two governments coexisting within China as a result of a civil war. On the other hand, the USSR and the Baltic states were fully recognised de jure sovereign states, both members of the League of Nations, when one country attempted to grab the other country. BTW, China also withheld recognition of de jure sovereignty of the USSR over the Baltic states (see Lawrence Juda, United States' nonrecognition of the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States: Politics and law, Journal of Baltic Studies, Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 1975 , pages 272–290), so you claim this is a West only thing is disproved. --Nug (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Just no.--Львівське (говорити) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back to the original topic. We are expected to link to the de facto government under which Komarov was born, because it is the de facto government (in the example case, the ESSR of the CCCP), which controlled the subject's life. I may not recognize the legitimacy of the Soviet occupation of Estonia; but the fact is that Komarov was born into a state ruled by the Estonian SSR, not the Estonian government-in-exile, just as patriots like Padraic Pearse were born in what was then the United Kingdom, though they gave their lives that a free Ireland could be "a nation once again." --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person is clear: Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state, i.e. the state that held sovereignty over the administrative unit. It doesn't say anything about de facto government. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug, you've managed to contradict your earlier argument. Kudos. GiantSnowman 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How so? --Nug (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug, you've conflated legitimacy with actual rule. The Soviets were sovereign in that region at that time, whether one deems them legitimate or not: that is to say, they did rule there, whether they were entitled to do so or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources show the USSR failed to acquire sovereignty over the Baltic states. You appear to be confusing sovereign title with defacto control. Sovereignty is more than just de facto control, it is defacto control plus legitimacy. From World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction by Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein on page 44:

"There is one further fundamental feature of sovereignty. It is a claim, and claims have little meaning unless they are recognised by others. Others may not respect the claims, but that is in many ways less important than that they recognise them formally. Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy."[8]

Yes, the Soviets had de facto control, but no, they were not sovereign in that region at that time. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct, that's the whole point. The USSR did not have sovereign control over the territory. Neither did Estonia, so the standard practice is to present the occupied country, not the occupier. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of your two seem to understand what the word 'sovereign' means. Like Orange Mike said, you're confusing legitimacy with actual rule. While some governments considered the Estonian government-in-exile to be the legal rightholders to the territory of Estonia, the USSR held actual administrative rule over it. Estonia in of itself held no sovereignty, hence the decision to declare sovereignty in 1988. As it stands to common sense, they wouldn't have to declare it if they already had it.--Львівське (говорити) 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Estonian government-in-exile had nothing to do with it, Latvia and Lithuania did not have one, but legitimacy has everything to do with it. Sovereignty only exists if it is formally recognised by others. From World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction by Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein on page 44: "Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy." --Nug (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty, noun. Oxford Dictionary: "supreme power or authority; the authority of a state to govern itself or another state". Get the difference between control and sovereignty? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And without recognition there is no authority. Estonia became a nation state in 1920 via the principle of self-determination and enshrined in its constitution is the claim that the supreme power (i.e. sovereignty) of the State is held by the people and that was accorded international recognition. The people of Estonia never surrendered their sovereignty to the Soviet Union, it was seized by electoral fraud and unconstitutional acts backed by the threat of force. The international community withheld recognition of the Soviet claim of sovereignty because of the recognised pre-existing claim of sovereignty held by the people of Estonia. Just because the Estonian people could not exercise de facto control through their institutions of state does not mean the sovereignty held by the people was extinguished. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was legitimate in the eyes of Soviet citizens in Estonia, duress or not, and that's all that matters. You're trying to skew words and definitions and support it with irrelevant laws & diplomatic stances of outside actors. This is a strawman argument. Supreme power, authority, whatever you want to call it – was in the hands of the USSR. Read Leviathan.--Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely when you start relying on 15th century texts to support your argument about a topic of 20th century history, I think the time has come to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, your collegue User:GoodDay has since dropped his objections, you should do too. --Nug (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to shout louder than everyone else hasn't convinced a single editor so far, which is telling. That you're not familiar with Hobbes, and don't see it's relation to the understanding of "sovereignty" (a concept you're trying to argue about), perhaps you should step away from this debate until you're more familiar with the material (your point was akin to saying Das Kapital is outdated in a conversation about Marxism). As has been pointed out, you've contradicted yourself – several times – just to 'win' this point of yours. I will step away from this particular incarnation of the argument, however, since it seems to be devolving into another circular, long-winded tirade of e-lawyering.--Львівське (говорити) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as well, because reliable sources show that Hobbes believed that sovereignty is not just about power and force but also about authority, legality and legitimacy. --Nug (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske, your argument sadly displays your ignorance on how the Geneva conventions or the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 see state sovereignty. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At least you have a sense of humor lol--Львівське (говорити) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

One more in agreement with Lvivske, Orange Mike, et al. De facto is more important than de jure here. --GRuban (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So just for speed reading's sake, that's Orange Mike, Lvivske, Alaney2k, GiantSnowman, Ravenswing, Nomoskedasticity, and GRuban for 'Soviet Union', and Nug & Jaan for Estonia.--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So according to GRuban, Fahed Attal was actually born in Qalqilya, Israel, since Israel had de facto control of Qalqilya in 1985. Have WikiProject WP:Palestine been informed of this discussion. I suppose now that anyone born in Stanley, Falkland Islands in April 1982 was actually born in Stanley, Argentina, given Argentina's brief period of de facto governance. --Nug (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Was Fahed Attal born in Israel? Did Israel give him Israeli citizenship? Did Israel consider the west bank under its administration and incorporate it into Israel proper? Did other countries recognize the west bank being part of Israel? If not, this is a bad analogy. Don't equate occupation to sovereignty.--Львівське (говорити) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Temporary de facto control is not important here. If we were to follow the line supported by GRuban (″De facto is more important than de jure here″), then anyone born in Stanley, Falkland Islands in April 1982 was actually born in Stanley, Argentina - when implementing policy in a uniform way. But this would simply be ridiculous. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Falkland Islands were never formally incorporated into Argentina. While occupied, Falklanders weren't citizens of Argentina during the war, nor did Argentines exercise administration of the islands in a non-military capacity.--Львівське (говорити) 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Like the infobox, my statement was too short to do the topic justice. :-) De jure is important, de facto is important. But de jure at the time was debated. De facto wasn't. Some governments, especially Soviet allies, recognized Soviet occupation, some governments, especially Soviet enemies, didn't. It was a cold war argument, one of many. Your statement "The international community withheld recognition of the Soviet claim of sovereignty" implies there was a unanimous view, which there wasn't. The overwhelming majority of the population, however, did recognize it, whether or not they liked it. Given the limited choices available to us in the infobox, that's what we should go with. Feel free to add a footnote saying that this was occupied, etc. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Only five governments actually recognised Soviet sovereignty, of course the Warsaw pact countries did too but they Soviet puppet states after all. Communist China nor Yugoslavia never gave recognition to the Soviet conquest while the majority of countries remained silent, and silence on the issue implies continued prior recognition by all those states that previously recognised the Baltics in the period before the Soviet takeover in 1940, in other words remaining silent is withholding recognition, that is 100+ countries. The claim that "the majority of the population recognised the occupation whether they liked it or not" doesn't stand either, given the armed insurgency that existed in the Baltic states into the mid-1950, and continued unarmed protest after that. To say it was a "cold war argument" hasn't any legs given the scholarly literature that discusses the continuity of the Baltic states was written long after the Cold War ended. These post-Cold War scholars say there was not difference between the Iraqi occupation and Soviet occupation apart from the duration, and we don't say people born in Kuwait 1991 where actually born in Kuwait City, Iraq, given Iraq's non-recognised annexation of Kuwait at that time. --Nug (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You see, this is where original research starts to creep in, once you start assuming things based on this 'silence = implying'. China didn't recognize Estonia until after Russia did, after the USSR collapsed - whereas you are directly stating that China "remained silent and implied continued prior recognition". This simply wasn't the case, just stuff you're making up now. We're talking about a period after the Russian revolution when Estonia became free, before the UN existed, and alleging "hundreds" of countries implied recognition in the UN era in absentia. It's just all made up stuff at this point. You can only state this for countries that abided by European laws and signed treaties in the interwar period, but this doesn't include hundreds of countries. Not all countries in the world had diplomatic relations with Estonia between 1920-1940--Львівське (говорити) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What a strange cavil. Estonia was recognised by the League of Nations - with the Secretary General of the League visiting it in 1937. [9]. It had joined the League of Nations in 1921 - thus was a member for about two decades. It was a member of the UPU (officially named UPU from 1878 - previously "General Postal Union" (see Montgomery Blair) ) as of 1924 - meaning its stamps were recognised by all member nations of the UPU from 1924 on. Which did, indeed, concern "hundreds of countries". And I assure you that I did not make up the UPU. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean't UN, it was a typo. Though the point could be made that their LON membership didn't carry over to the UN, they were exempt for a reason. According to the List of members of the Universal Postal Union, Estonia didn't join until 1992 (fwiw). Also, if accepting mail is used as a diplomatic standard for recognition, then accepting mail posted from the Estonian SSR would also imply recognition (not that this is the case, but it obviously goes both ways) --Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Useless argument -- the Estonian SSR DID NOT ISSUE STAMPS. The USSR stamps were recognized internationally as valid for postage because the USSR (the stamp issuer) was a UPU member. And the UPU records specifically give 1924 for the Estonian membership - which I pointed out before and you seem not to have noticed. Read the footnotes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to be so flippant. And no footnotes for Estonia exist on the list article, sherlock. Just for your information, the UPU site says '92, not'24.--Львівське (говорити) 01:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Baltic states joined the UPU in 1920's (see 27 Am. J. Int'l L. 649 (1933) Membership in the Universal Postal Union; Akzin, Benjamin[10]). FWIW the UPU claims the Russian Federation joined in 1875, even though we all know the Russian Federation came into existence in 1991[11], so I would take what they say on their website with caution. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug, correct me if I'm wrong, but the UPU website says that Estonia joined in 1992, "Date of entry into the UPU" - pretty straight forward. With Russia, perhaps they count it as a successor of the Russian Empire; whereas they cancelled Estonia's membership once it joined/annexed/was incorporated into the USSR, and had to give it a new membership in 1992? I know that goes against the 'continuity' narrative but... --Львівське (говорити) 01:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If the UPU considered the Russian Federation as the successor to Imperial Russia, what happened to the USSR? And why did the UPU admit the Ukrainian SSR in 1947[12]. Did they consider Ukrainian SSR a sovereign state but somehow the other SSRs not? Who knows why the UPU lists the Baltic states as it does. As Dainius Žalimas writes: "In January 1992 the Republic of Lithuania restored her membership in the Universal Postal Union and, therefore, was re-included in the General list of UPU member countries and of territories included in the Union as a member of UPU since January 1922."(Žalimas, Dainius (2002). "Legal Issues on the Continuity of the Republic of Lithuania". Baltic yearbook of international law: 2001. Volume 1. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17). So the inconsistencies on the UPU site means that we cannot safey use it as a source on state sovereignty. --Nug (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, the Ukrainian SSR was considered a sovereign nation and member of the UN separate to the USSR, so maybe it was just along those lines. Of course, the UN example was just to give the USSR more votes, but how that tactic applies to a postal union i have no idea.--Львівське (говорити) 15:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Google news for the period 1945 to 1990:

• "Riga, Latvia" dozens of pages hit[13]
• "Riga, Latvia, USSR" less than one page[14]
• "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" less than one page[15]
• "Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" no pages[16]
• "Riga, Latvian SSR" less than one page[17]
• "Riga, Soviet Union" less than one page[18]
• "Riga, USSR" one and a half pages of hits[19]

"Riga, Latvia" was the common name for that WP:PLACE during that period. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

UPU: [20] On 19 May 1922, Estonia joined the Universal Postal Union. . [21] also shows the 1922 date (and is an official source). [22] is also a reliable source. Should an air service be established between U.S.S.R. and Estonia, the Contracting Parties agree to use such service as much as possible for the conveyance of mail is found in a Soviet treaty! [23] The Soviet Union itself had a postal teaty with Estonia! Not only do we have RS statements that Estonia joined the UPU in 1922, but also that the Soviet Union recognised the sovereignty of Estonia in its postal treaty with Estonia. 1921 League of Nations source [24]. [25] Estonia was still recognised as a member of the LoN as of 18 April 1946. [26] Estonia was an initial signatory to the "Slavery Convention." [27] Signatory to Treaty of Paris. [28] Geneva Convention. Thus reliable sources show Estonia was a member of the UPU from 1922, was a signatory to major treaties and conventions, was a member of the LoN until 1946 etc. If you need even more soursces to end the silly claim that Estonia was not considered separate by other nations etc., try to find some sources for your claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

There is an ongoing dispute about quotations about the dismissal of state charges against Aaron Swartz after the institution of federal charges. One editor is adamant that the quotes are a WP:BLP violation as to Carmen Ortiz. At least three editors (including me) disagree. But we're repeating ourselves and have started shedding more heat than light (myself included.) We could use some fresh eyes. The various contentions are well-explained here and here. David in DC (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

About the last two items linked above:  The former (topic 53) has 2,650 words, some of them pertinent.  The latter (topic 55) has 930 words, most of them pertinent.

Topic 54 gives a 70-word summary of what ‘contentious material’ means.

A helpful debate between David in DC and Dervorguilla is found at this edit summary. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

After a lull, talk page discussion suggests a new round of wiki-lawyering about settled issues, is about to heat up again. If nuetral BLP-savvy editors would keep an eye out for spillage onto the article page, it would be a helpful. As would prophylactic participation on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Misharin

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

Please see the latest article history on the addition/removal of material about KrasAir. It's a little hard for me to judge the material because I don't speak Russian and had the benefit of only a machine translation, but the material being added strikes me as WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:COATRACKy. Also, it lacks context because it doesn't really explain why the prosecutor supposedly warned Misharin (I got a bit confused by the translation as to who was warning whom for what). As worded by the editor adding the material, it is not particularly helpful to the reader. I'm going to revert one more time and then let others decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the actual story was like this: Misharin was a deputy minister and the chairman of the board of KrasAir. The govt was a major stakeholder, so he had rights and responsibilities. Apparently, Abramovich brothers siphoned the money out of the company, later buying stakes in Malev and Skyexpress. So the govt was screwed badly. That cased reprimands from Gen Proc Office. (And yeah, thousands of people were left in airports sitting on their bags with their children. Who cares.) That led to Misharin being shuffled to less-significant position in the govt and later being sent to rule Sverdlovsk region. But I am trying to contribute two basic facts actually: (1) the company scandalously went bankrupt under his supervision (2) GenProc officially blamed him. Gritzko (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The Russian version has that story[29], mentioning two points: (1) bankruptcy (2)GenProc warning. Accusations of embezzlement are also mentioned. So, my proposal is to have a condensed (2-sentence, not 2-paragpaph) version of that in the English version. Gritzko (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the latest topic at article talk. --ssr (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you absolutely off limits. You were illegally paid to doctor Wikipedia and that is official. Rublyov, you are a freaking suspected criminal! Gritzko (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the latest topic at article talk. --ssr (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt of persistent violator Gritzko, plase act accordingly. He should not directly edit the article that was concluded by numerous mediators (see article talk), there may be a topic-ban or something. Also another personal attack despite warnings at User_talk:Gritzko#February_2013 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Gritzko. Usage of the same arguments that were countered endless times (at article talk). --ssr (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Linda Riordan

• Linda Riordan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User:Riordanlj, created 2013-02-07, seems to have been removing content from the Linda Riordan article - a UK Member of Parliament as it happens. Content removed is generally critical of the article subject. The most recent edit summary (from this diff) claims "These statements were factually incorrect and I will take further action if you continuebto print". I've left a note on the users page suggesting that they make themselves aware of BLP policies and WP:LEGAL. The criticism is all sourced, although it may be that the reliability of the information in the sources is questionable - wouldn't be the first time this has happened of course. If someone with more experience can have a check on the article it would be handy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I expected another WP:UNDUE mess like the ones we're used to for politicians but I can't find much fault in the paragraph. The sources are impeccable. If anything it would perhaps be appropriate to re-word a bit to specify that all that stuff she was involved in was part of a greater 'row' that included a great deal many MPs. But I see no BLP violations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already edited and added sources and balance I imagine by the time you looked at it - it may be that the user comes back with more objections, we'll see. I've added the number of other MPs involved as suggested - ta v much for that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good job on the edit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Barry Andrews (politician)

He was one of many officials named in a newspaper article criticizing the payments these officials got when they left office, and the size of the pensions they could receive. Someone deleted the amount of his pension (which was properly sourced), and I reverted it. Now someone using a different IP address has deleted it again and added a poorly-sourced statement that "he has not drawn down any pension payments to date."

The edit summary here shows why the statement is poorly sourced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Andrews_%28politician%29&diff=537683291&oldid=537585360

This shows the overall changes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Andrews_%28politician%29&diff=537737571&oldid=537585360

Rybec (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the poorly-sourced statement and added back the amount. Rybec (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Prince Abdi

It looks like Prince Abdi is going to survive the AfD, so it needs to be watched as it's frequently the subject of vandalism attacks. RNealK (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got the article on my watch list. It's the least I could do, since I recommended "Keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

Could experienced editors please keep an eye on Steve Stockman? This is a high-profile individual at the moment and the article is a mess. There are a huge number of citation needed tags, I've found some cases where sentences are copied or closely paraphrased from cited sources and there are some POV issues. For instance: "A Houston Chronicle article reminds that "Stockman’s two years in Congress were marked by weirdness". Another example: Stockman's opponent was described as: "A native of Coffeyville in southeastern Kansas, and a supporter of U.S. President Barack H. Obama" (the opponent's place of birth is irrelevant and may have been mentioned to imply that he's an outsider to the district, the H. in Obama's name is also conspicuous). Stockman is generating a lot of controversy so this article will need some close attention. GabrielF (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the mention of his opponent's birthplace and the President's middle initial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom Aspell

Resolved

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Someone at help desk thinks he warrants an article if anyone is in the mood to create one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Canoe. Yes, I'm the one who asked about this at the help desk.[30] Below is a copy of the comments I posted there:
Can someone please create an article for Tom Aspell? He was born in 1950 and died on February 11, 2013, at age 62, after a two-year battle with lung cancer. He was an NBC News foreign correspondent for 28 years and started in the business in 1970, so it amazes me that he doesn't have an article. If anyone would be kind of enough to start an article, here's the link to the story and video from this evening's broadcast of NBC Nightly News, which verifies all the information I've given. They announced his death just a couple hours ago. Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

This really is the wrong place to ask for new articles.Martin451 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. I wondered about that when Canoe said he brought it here. I guess he was just trying to help. Anyway, do you feel like creating an article for Aspell? (hint, hint) ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. It seems he was nice enough to create it for you. I expect you to expand it though. I would like at least 50,000 bytes added and on my desk by morning.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize he created the article. What a nice guy. I failed to notice Aspell's name is blue. Haha. Thank you, Martin! --76.189.111.1It akl99 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It all worked out in the end, but for future reference WP:Requested articles is the appropriate venue for such requests.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chien-Chi Chang

Chien-Chi Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chien-Chi Chang is no longer married to Cheryl Lai, who is described as the head of Taiwan's news service.

And he now resides in Austria and New York City.

He just told me that this material was erroneous in his bio and that he doesn't even know who put it up. I am a friend and the writer of Double Happiness. Chien-Chi can be reached through Magnum Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiadowling (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about his 2004 marriage, as it's not supported by any cited source provided. The Magnum Photo page still says he lives in Taipei and New York City, not Austria and New York City, so it's them that will need to update that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrey Borodin

Andrey Borodin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• By request, I have stopped by to ask for some eyes on Andrey Borodin. I've taken a quick look at the article, and it does appear to be biased and not neutral. Could someone take a look over it and see if some cleanup can be done? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Don Share

Entry has been maliciously vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scannerpage (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. Next time, please feel free to revert such vandalism yourself.--ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Meredith Monroe

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

There is a reservation as to whether Meredith Monroe biography is accurate as there is no concrete evidence to support what her birth name is - Meredith Leigh Monroe or Meredith Hoyt Monroe. I believe Wikipedia has removed a lot of information off her page including her birth date simply as no one is sure whether she was born in 1976 or 1969.

Therefore there is a question should Wikipedia still list her as Meredith Leigh Monroe rather than Meredith Hoyt Monroe. I ask this question, as there are a lot of inconsistences within her biography. Whilst known as Meredith Hoyt Monroe from the time frame 1997 – 2004 she was know either to be born in 1977 or 1976. Later from around 2004/5 onward she started to be referred as Meredith Leigh Monroe born 1970, 1969 or 1968. However the timeline of events when Meredith is know, as Leigh is a bit dubious.

The first reports of Meredith lying about her age came from a website The Iconophile who still refers to her as Hoyt and claims High School friends had contact him saying she was born in 1970. On the Wikipedia Talk page again there is a comment made that Meredith gradate High School in 1988. Even though people have made these claims no one has mentioned which High School she attended and there is no record in the public domain of any pictures or yearbook evidence. As many celebrities have there yearbook pictures on various website it seem odd that no one as posted Meredith. Also if it is in the public domain which University she attended why has the High School she attended not been listed?

The second mystery is the University she attend the Millikin University. A University not known for its performing arts but more for its liberal arts and fine arts. Should we follow Meredith Leigh Monroe born in 1969 education and work history she would have graduated High School in 1988, university in 1991 only then to start modelling and acting in 1997. At the age of 28 is seem odd for a woman to then start to model for teenage magazines and play teenage roles. If we start with Meredith early work it shows that her first job was modelling for a teenage magazine, a jumper catalogue and the Nancy Drew books, At All Cost published in Oct 1997, Royal Revenge Dec 1997, Operations Titanic Feb 1998 and Process of Elimination April 1998. Plus doing teenage roles in Norville and Trudy 1997, Dangerous Minds 1997, Hang Time 1997, Sunset Beach 1998, Beyond the Prairie; The True Story of Laura Ingalls Wilder 1999 and Dawson Creek 2000. If we look at time frame it doesn’t really make sense and a little farfetched that someone goes through the education system works outside of the media industry for 6 years only to change career at 28 to play teenager parts. If Kerr Smith age was noticed on Dawson Creek so should have Meredith especially if people were claiming she was the oldest cast member rather than after the show ended.

As there is no reliable source to say if Meredith was born Meredith Hoyt Monroe or Meredith Leigh Monroe how is her biography accurate? Unlike the other cast members on Dawson Creek there is no information on family or High School records within the public domain to verify her birth name or age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source for her full name to the article. As for the rest of your message, I'm really not sure what the point is. There's no longer a birth date listed in the article so I'm not sure why you are disputing it. Without a reliable source, the discussion is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what or where your reliable source is as it may help to clear up Meredith Monroe date of birth as well. The point I was trying to make was the name change is associated to her change in date of birth and the two time frames.

Born in 1976 when better know as Meredith Hoyt Monroe her life events would have followed, graduated High School in 1994. University in 1997 and began first modelling job possible 1997/6 if started whilst at University or straight after. As it has always been stated that Meredith first model for the Nancy Drew book and did small television commercials in 1997 and then moved into film and soaps later around 1998. Details can be found on her official website.

However when later known a Meredith Leigh Monroe born in 1969 she would have graduated High School in 1988. University in 1991 only then to have waited 6 years to start modelling in 1997 making her aged 28 with no account of what she had done in the 6 years in between University and working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The source is the first ref in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The source does not provide a definitive birth date, so as I said, without a reliable source on this matter this discussion is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Huey Newton article--definition of "recently dead"

Editors Amadscientist and UsetheCommandLine are asserting that Huey Newton (whose 1989 death is confirmed) and Bert Schneider (whose 2011 death is confirmed) are both covered by WP:BLP under the recent clause. Amadscientist asserts that anyone who was born less than 115 years ago, even if confirmed dead, is covered.

This needs to be clarified. I might understand recent to mean 6 months, a year....even two years at the outside. If someone has been dead for 24 years, I do not see how this can be considered "recent."

Please clarify. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

115 years is an oddly specific figure, and longer than even the ridiculously long post-death copyright terms. Is there any policy basis for such a specific time frame? Also could you link to the discussion you've cited? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, people born more than 115 years ago, but whose death has not been confirmed, may be included in Category:Possibly living peopleCategory:Year of death missing. Perhaps that's what those editors were thinking of? Apostle12's viewpoint seems like common sense to me. Rybec (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, BLP should apply to people who may still be alive, but once you are confirmed dead, then insert dead parrot joke here. I'm inclined to agree with Apostle12's viewpoint based on what has been presented here, but I'd like to see where the opposing view is coming from first. Gamaliel (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be at Talk:Huey_P._Newton. I haven't read it. Rybec (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just skimmed it now. My first impression is that Apostle12 wants to include certain material and is opposed largely by two other editors. The BLP policy claim was one of a number of tactics used to keep this material out of the article. The rest of the dispute aside, the BLP claim of 115 years appears to be incorrect and to be contradicted by the policy linked to by one of the editors making this claim. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The policy that was cited is Wikipedia:BDP#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead and it says "anyone born within the last 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." I would assume there are reliable sources for Huey Newton's death. Rybec (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he is only pining for the fjords. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit (or the reversion of the multiple edits that were removed) that started the long discussion that has developed over the last week or so.

• Subsequent DRN discussion
• Talk page discussion
• Additional Talk page discussion
• summation of issues re:Schneider

It appeared to me that the outcome of these talks suggested that both Newton and Schneider were covered by WP:BLP policies. I would note that Amadscientist was one of the WP:DRN volunteers handling the original dispute re:Schneider.

Subsequently, this edit was made by an IP editor. Discussion ensued. I believe I have laid out my concerns adequately already in that discussion, namely, coverage (or not) of Newton by WP:BLP and a related WP:RS concern. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The policy also explicitly excludes people whose deaths have been confirmed and defines recent by linking to Deaths in 2013, so it would seem that someone who died in 1989 is not covered by this policy or by any reasonable definition of "recent" in policy terms. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So what I am hearing is that Newton is not covered by the "recently dead" provision, which is good to know. Since we're here discussing it already, at what point might it no longer cover Schneider, who is more recently deceased? (generally, it is understood that there might not be any hard and fast rules here.) my understanding now is that Schneider, having passed over a year ago, would no longer be covered as "recently dead"? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look at the sources for the claims about a connection between Schneider and Newton. If it is indeed written on salon.com it's gotten wide exposure already. On the other hand, Apostle12 wrote that he thought that a recent death could be "even two years at the outside." If he could hold off on adding it to the articles, it would be more considerate to Schneider's relatives. Rybec (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

While the claim may have gotten wide exposure on salon.com, the consensus of the DRN discussion seemed to be that salon.com and this article in particular should not be relied on for statements of fact, especially when there are no other sources to corroborate the claim made in that piece. This, i suppose, would be in addition to the "recently dead" provision. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on whether salon.com is reliable or not, just on the likelihood that the survivors have heard these claims. Rybec (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "recently deceased" applies for one year after the subject's death. I am not aware of any more strict definition than this. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This all makes a lot more sense now. Thanks everyone for the clarification. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the basis is for Yworo's understanding that there is a bright-line one-year definition for recent deaths. Apparently, as a result of that sentence, Apostle changed the policy to add it. I've reverted the change because it is a significant change requiring far more discussion before it's made. Normally, that discussion would be on the policy talk page (as opposed to here), or perhaps at the Pump depending on editors' views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Joel Brinkley

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

Someone has been repeatedly writing slanderous material on my Wikipedia page realting to a column I wrote last week. I'm a syndicated columnist. I have removed it 5 or 6 times. But it keeps coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.33.130 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether the material is slanderous - please be careful with such language, as it may land you in trouble with Wikipedia's policy on legal threats - but the added/deleted/added material is clearly inappropriate per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'm about to request semi-protection of the page, which should sort out the problem in the short term. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week (for now). The material that was being added gave completely undue attention to a single event and included sources to blogs and what amounted essentially to POV commentary specifically aimed to make the subject look bad. Negative content and criticism can be included in biographies if well sourced, notable, and as long as it is not given undue attention; this was pretty much an example of how not to do it. Interested parties can use the article talk page to discuss and reach consensus as to if and how the criticism should be covered. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am bringing this conversation back up for debate. While I agree that the negative comments should not be there, I believe that there is good reason to include the information about the above mentioned controversy.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing to not ask the pope for his opinion on the subject matter and have proposed to draft up a more neutral assessment of the situation as there are plenty of RS.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There were many problems with the original section: POV tone, UNDUE, blog sourcing. Properly weighted and handled it might be included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This I all agree with. Should I just go ahead and rewrite the original section? I have all of the appropriate sources and it's not hard to phrase this neutrally. Part of the concern is that several blogs have noticed that this article has been "cleaned up".Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where any notable controversy is. He wrote an article and few people disagreed in the blog/feedback section. Was there significant coverage of any controversy? I didn't see any mainstream authority that disagreed with him nor any reports of a controversy. Undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc, still apply until we can report that it is a big controversy that has recieved significant coverage by mainstream media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrisvanlang; what blogs think about Wikipedia articles being fixed to comply with WP:BLP is not a "concern" in any way, shape or form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chrisvanlang, we may not source any material, especially opinions, from blog comments. Unless several reliable sources label this a "controversy", it's not, and shouldn't be included in the article. In point of fact, most blog posts are not considered reliable sources. Blog comments are never viewed as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you continue to pursue this sort of attempt at defamation, you may find yourself blocked from editing WIkipedia altogether. Please have the good sense to desist. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Chrisvanlang is advocating using blogs or blog comments as sources in that comment, he or she is just noting that blogs have commented negatively, accurately or not, on Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he wanted to source the very fact of the existence of a "controversy" to critical blog comments about Brinkley's article, and is most likely the author of the subsequent comments criticizing Wikipedia for removing the unreliably sourced content. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I should make it very clear that I did not write the original section that we have all agreed to removed, the discussion is whether or not the controversy is a controversy worth mentioning on the article satisfying WP:UNDUEChrisvanlang (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There clearly is a controversy independent of blog comments, see [31] and [32]. Whether or not it is one that deserves inclusion is another matter. Let's remember WP:AGF please. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The second source you link is itself a blog post and in no way a reliable source. This is a BLP, even the blogs of recognized experts can't be used as sources in articles about living people. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources meeting WP:BLP: BBC (3 times) [33][34][35]; Thanh Nien [36]; and the Mercury News above. Debatable: Stanford Daily (student paper) [37]; Huffington Post [38] (more of an editorial). --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Romenesko is a professional journalist working for the Poynter Institute and as such meets the RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I found Brinkley's piece, dated February 1st, at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-01/news/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129_1_dog-meat-da-nang-meat-eaters . It still contains the controversial statements. At the bottom it says:

Editor’s note: Tribune Media Services, which distributed this article, issued a follow-up statement on Friday, February 1:

Tribune Media Services (TMS) recently moved an opinion column by Joel Brinkley about his observations from a trip to Vietnam that did not meet our journalistic standards. The column has provoked a highly critical response from readers since its release.

TMS has a rigorous editing process for its content, and in the case of Brinkley’s column that moved Jan. 29, all the required steps did not occur. We regret that this happened, and we will be vigilant in ensuring that our editing process works in the future.

(the same apology is reproduced on jimromenesko.com). Opinion pieces are supposed to cause controversy. I think it's unusual for a newspaper chain to apologize and try to hide for an editorial. This is not trivial. Rybec (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The editorial and apology are at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129,0,2766282.column as well. Rybec (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverse ferret. I can now understand points for inclusion. The main problem is still the sheer size the section would take up in such a small article and thus create a coatrack. If we include a first sentence describing the article and its retraction by the paper, a second one with a notable person disagreeing with it, a third one with Mr.Brinkley's rebuttal, and then a fourth with another notable backing Mr.Brinkley then it would unbalance the article bytewise. This would still be considered undue, not news, coatrack, POV, etc. by many editors. If the article were expanded with more positive material then that may change a few minds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really does have to do with the current short length of the article. Were the article significantly longer, covering other articles written by the subject and responses to those articles, then perhaps with reliable sources, this inclusion would be appropriate. Someone wanting to add this would need to also add significant positive content to the article in order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the article before making my earlier remarks. I see the point about its brevity. Rybec (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've lengthened the article from 3581 bytes to 6551 bytes with material that would not be out of place in his CV. I feel that a statement like "a January 2013 piece was widely discussed," with the op-ed itself and the Mercury-News page as references, would present the matter in a neutral way. The Mercury-News page contains both criticism and Brinkley's responses, including the remark that he "has never received so much reaction to one of his pieces," which means nearly the same thing as saying it "was widely discussed." Would adding that sentence still create concerns about undue weight? --Rybec (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A sentence or two wouldn't be out of line, perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ER no comment on this particular case, but thats not how NPOV or UNDUE work. Just because info is negative does not mean we need to balance it with positive. Likewise length of the article is not part of it. If someone with a short article causes a discussion in lots of reliable sources, positive or negative, we dont have to wait until something opposing it comes to light. It may never do so, the negative/positive event may be the most significant thing that they do in an otherwise barely-notable life. Is it relevant to their notability? Yes, is it covered significantly in reliable sources? Yes, then it may be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Covered significantly" may still be an issue even if its inclusion looks like a coatrack of such a small article. I think it was only covered in 1 1/2 online news sources in the bay area. Last I looked it had gone from 101 reader comments at the bottom of the article to 140 or so. Splash in the pan news?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that coverage in Thanh Nien, the BBC, the Huffington Post, Romenesko's blog and the Chicago Tribune is not significant and that only media based in the San Francisco area "count"? I've found some more coverage: Thanh Nien did another piece, dated February 15th, http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/Pages/20130215-Joel-Brinkley-eats-his-words-and-they-dont-taste-good.aspx . It mentions an additional apology (besides the one by Tribune Media) from Margaret Holt of the Chicago Tribune and says that a petition circulated among Stanford students gathered 1500 signatures. There's a letter from the Asian American Journalists Association: http://www.aaja.org/joel-brinkley-column/ and also published at http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/aaja-condemns-joel-brinkleys-column-about-vietnam.php . Tuổi Trẻ interviewed Brinkley: http://www.tuoitrenews.vn/cmlink/tuoitrenews/society/joel-brinkley-sorry-for-labeling-vietnam-aggressive-1.98176 —rybec 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quintin Jardine

• Quintin Jardine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quintin, the subject of the above article, removed unsourced contentious material from the article, which then received possible vandalism.[39] Quintin's edits were undone. Quintin posted about his frustrations here. I then removed the material per WP:BLP.[40] I'm posting here to have the article receive a once over for any other BLP issues and to have it watched for a bit. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a heap of unreferenced info, tagged for improvement, and added to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also watchlisted. Yworo (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quintin asks that his birth year information be removed from the article. The source supporting that birth year is http://www.booksfromscotland.com/Authors/Quintin-Jardine. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires a high-quality source, so if someone else agrees, we should remove the birth year from the article since it only is sourced by http://www.booksfromscotland.com/Authors/Quintin-Jardine . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jane Davidson

I attempted to improve the Jane Davidson article today by adding more reliable sources and making it fit WP:NPOV better. But again a single purpose account has remove the criticisms of the subject, and even the references to its removal from the talk page. An admin has reverted the edits once, but it seems a lot of new users want this article censored! -Politicool (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no sign of you having edited that article at all -- and there's no sign of recent additions there, certainly nothing today or yesterday. Not sure what your concern is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Try looking at their edit history, the latest on January 30, 2012.--Auric talk 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The "SPA" appears to be Lstokes71, with this edit.--Auric talk 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was the person who tried to rebalance the article from being like an WP:Advert that sang the praises of the subject to include the disputed critical content. It was clearly being used for promotional purposes - the subject even edited the article herself using User:JaneBryngwyn, I have put a discussion on the talk page about whether the subject was just notable in politics - she has now retired. With the WP:COI issues this article will just be a protracted edit-war between those who want to puff up the subject's popularity and impact and those who want a more fair and balanced article which is not what the former wants to hear -Politicool (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Singh

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

This biography was deleted (without discussion) and reposted with slight revision. This biography lacks NPOV, Verifiability (many of the sources are questionable websites which published the subjects press release), Writing style is clearly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banchasana (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a WP:BLP issue. Seems well sourced with sufficient sources to establish notability. Sources do not seem to "questionable websites which published the subjects press release" as claimed. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added disputed tags to help clean up the article. Thanks for the feedback. Banchasana (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Marco Rubio's Grandfather

[41] has:

The Associated Press reported that "no other immigration records exist for Garcia from 1962 until he applied for residency four years later" and concluded that he likely remained in the U.S. illegally during the intervening period

Which I strangely interpret to be an accusation of a crime ("illegally") requiring strong sourcing as a contentious claim. The AP statement is clearly speculation only - thus I suggest it does not meet the BLP requirements, The claim clearly affects the grandfather, who is not stated to be dead, as well as Marco Rubio as it is placed in his direct BLP. The article is not about the grandfather otherwise at all. Is the AP surmise sufficient for the insertion of a criminal claim into a BLP? I would note that no source other than the AP surmise has been presented for the accusation of a crime. Collect (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no lack of sources for this, Collect. Here is one that isn't "speculation". I have no doubt you'll find a way to dislike it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AP is a reliable source, and the statement is a clearly attributed. Moreover, "illegal" != "criminal". Looks good to me. I'm less certain about WP:DUE, but given that Rubio has used his Cuban connections politically, it probably passes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! "Illegal" does not mean "criminal" at all? What a strange position for anyone to take! I have no problem with the deportation order - only the specific use of "illegally" which has clear connotations. Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: "illegal drugs" certainly seems to have that connotation in ordinary English - and I find the use of "illegal" to mean "aliens" to be offensive ab initio. Cheers -- but I had thought we were past calling such people "illegal." Collect (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What? Maybe you are not familiar with the common interpretation of !=. It means "not equal". It does not mean "has nothing to do with". It's illegal to park your car in a no-parking spot. It's not, usually, a crime. Moreover, we call nobody nothing here. The Associated Press, one of the major news services on the planet, calls the stay of Garcia "likely illegal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the source - it is surmise by its own statements - as it says it does not "know" if he committed the crime of being in the US illegally. That you seem to think you can lecture me on what "!=" means is pleasantly absurd, by the way. If I said "Gnarph likely committed a crime, but I do not know if he did" I would find that as a statement of "fact" to violate BLP. And that is the single point at issue. The AP declined to make it a claim of fact - therefore it fails WP:BLP as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AP concludes "likely", and so can we. The proposed edit did exactly replicate AP's "likely". If you only want 100% certain things, go become a mathematician. As for "!=", you seemed to interpret my statement as denying all relationship, when, in fact, I only pointed out that the terms do not fully coincide. That said, if I am qualified to talk about anything, the "=" and "!=" operators, both in logic and in many programming languages, are certainly within my area of expertise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And let's not forget the additional sources (with more available), which leave no doubt. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All very pleasant but if it is relevant to a biographical article, the discussion should continue in its discussion page, and if not, why discuss? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an Immigration section about legislation proposed by Marco Rubio. I can see how the paragraph about the grandfather lends to our understanding of Marco Rubio himself (thinking of WP:NPF).

I notice that the names of Marco Rubio's parents, wife and children are mentioned. Any reason not to strike them per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names? --Rybec (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to strike them. They seem to be well sourced and I'm not aware of any statement by Rubio or his relatives that they would prefer the names to be kept private. He names his wife and father in his Senate biography. Sperril (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't name his kids, though, then perhaps we should strike those. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to striking the names of his children. He did name them on his Florida House of Representatives biography, but their names in the article serve no real purpose. The only one I would absolutely object to removing would be that of his father due to media coverage of the circumstances surrounding his immigration from Cuba. Sperril (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Spouses typically are named in biographical articles, as are parents, so I suggest that those should be kept. I think it's a bit creepy to name non-notable minor children, but if the names are well sourced, Wikipedia policy permits them to be published. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We should respect non-notable people's right to privacy IMO. Unless their names have been widely publicized I believe that the names of children, spouses and parents of BLP subjects can, and should, be left out of BLP's in the spirit of WP:BLPN and WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. In the majority of circumstances referring to them simply as wife or child, does not result in a loss a "reader's complete understanding of the subject."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I took out the children's names. --Rybec (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Ramon Matia

Paul Matia was NOT succeeded in the Ohio Senate by Lee Fisher. He was actually succeeded by NO ONE. Redistricting (technically called apportionment) eliminated his west side Cuyahoga County district placing half in each of two adjacent Senate districts where the incumbents were mid term. Paul effectively was a man without a district. Lee Fisher was elected to a new district on the east side of Cuyahoga County and no part of either district overlapped. For whatever it is worth I was given part of his district and still had two years to serve on my 4 year term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.219.1 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Stark

Strange things afoot at Chris Stark - it's been edited about 100 times in the last 2 days by a variety of IPs, mostly adding absurd, unsourced and likely untrue content. Cluebot's gotten some of it, but not all of it is the type of stuff that Cluebot catches - idiotic little things like "...he is an accomplished knitter, producing the worlds largest bed sock. Somewhere along the way someone also added this "Mr Stark is also said to be fuming with the editing of his own Wikipedia page, and is said to be planning legal action." That's probably not a genuine legal threat, but it is indicative that at least one of the vandals seems to be acknowledging that there is some sort of campaign of vandalism going on. Okay, that might be a stretch, but there's certainly enough weirdness at the article recently that I thought it should at least have a few more sets of eyes on it, and possibly a semi-protect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I did do a massive revert to a clean version of the page, but vandalism has continued.[42] Dawn Bard (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. January (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Look's like Twitter's been cracking up over the prank editing. Best to keep a sharp eye out. FallingGravity (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Samer Tariq Issawi

Samer Tariq Issawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current bio of Samer Tariq Issawi defines the Palestinian political activist Samer Tariq Issawi as a "terrorist", which is a definition clearly in breach of the neutral point of view rule. In fact he was captured by Israel during the Israeli invasion of the West Bank and charged of possession of weapons and forming military groups in Jerusalem. The charges were levied not by a neutral party but by a military enemy, so they cannot be taken as a proof of the prisoner's wrongdoing. More importantly, even these biased charges did not include murder, so the definition of "terrorist" is not only inappropriate but also defamatory in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxillinus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you saw the article during a short period of (misspelled) vandalism, which has been reverted. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that I was reverting at the same time Maxillinus was writing this post. ... discospinster _talk 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Milburn

• Oliver Milburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article claims he was born in both Dorset & Northumberland. Sorry if I am in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.28 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You've found the right place. I've removed both places of birth, as they were unsupported by the sources currently available in the article. I did a fast and sloppy search, and came up empty-handed. FWIW the longstanding inconsistency comes from this IP edit in Belgium, but I'm in no position to challenge either location less than the other. I'm sure another editor might do better in finding a reliable source for the place of birth. For now, nothing is better than an inconsistent claim. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hashimoto Ryosuke's personal life is invalid.

the personal life profile in the page is invalid and is a disturbance to idols' fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riichoco (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is about a part of the article Ryosuke Hashimoto the editor doesn't like and has already removed 1, 2, 3 times as an IP and 1, 2 times as Riichoco. (I can safely presume that it is the same person, look in the edit history.) The part is sourced. Actually, the whole article is based on these sources. I've already suggested that the editor writes a better article there, so this part becomes a small fraction of it. The IP also removed a section from the article Chisato Moritaka: [43]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, I've already moved the part of the article to a separate section which I entitled "Personal life." It was part of the biography section before. I hoped that the IP would stop after that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Upper Crust Pizzeria

Could someone please check the source supporting the following claim? (I've used up my free access to The Boston Globe for this month.)

In early 2012, further allegations of criminality surfaced, as Jordan Tobins was placed on leave after using company funds for personal expenses.

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

I looked at the source earlier and mentally noted that "criminality" seemed a bit over the top. Also, they're eight months old, and they're allegations of criminality - not charges, not convictions - is this OK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote from the article: "Marcus’s about-face comes in the middle of a fierce battle for control of the gourmet pizza empire between Tobins and co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan Higgins. The pair recently sued Tobins, accusing him of charging the company more than $750,000 in personal expenses, including the purchase of a plane, and placed the founder on administrative leave in March." (cross posted from ANI) GabrielF (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gabriel. Well, that doesn't seem to support our article's "criminal" claim. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of a criminal charge for embezzlement in the Globe archives. Huggard and Brendan were suing to get Tobins to surrender his stake in the company, so the fact that the company went into bankruptcy suggests that the lawsuit is moot and won't be resolved. I do think we should mention the ownership dispute and the allegations. I wouldn't use the word "criminality", but I think we can say something like: "In 2012, Upper Crust co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan sued Tobins, alleging that he had used more than $750,000 in company money for personal expenses, such as the purchase of a small airplane. Tobins was placed on leave from the company." An additional source is Abelson, Jenn "Deep split at Upper Crust ; Co-owners' lawsuitsallege misuse of funds" Boston Globe 13 June 2012 GabrielF (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Userpage articles about Angelos Tympampoglou

I recently discovered these two user pages:

• Anty (footballer) (talk · contribs)
• Angelos Tympampoglou (talk · contribs)

Both are nearly mirror copies of each other, but the talk page content is identical. I don't know quite what to do. All edits are to their respective pages. Nothing links to either page, and there is already an article: Angelos Charisteas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Auric talk 13:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest; MfD both of them per a mix of WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:FAKEARTICLE. If someone has an explanation for what on earth is supposed to be going on, (or a proposal to move one or other or both to mainspace) it can come out during the MfD process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanked - both are a copy of the Angelos Charisteas article. Can anyone confirm if the two users in the question are the same? GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Ricardo Zaldivar

Could I get a second opinion on this article? It started off as a speedy, then was a BLP PROD, now it's a BLP which complies to the letter if not the spirit of BLPPROD by having a bunch of book sources, but no fact in the article is cited. Although this article's subject is asserted to be deceased, the recent claimed date of death and lack of verifibility thereof mean I think the BLP rules are valid. I can't definitively say it's a hoax, but it just looks a bit suspicious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoax. Batista's last name was "Zaldivar" and this person appears to be - simply put - a hoax. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as a blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable?

• Jeremiah MacKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Crain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2 recent articles: Michael Crain + Jeremiah MacKay--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No; I would say merge & redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings as they are not independently notable. GiantSnowman 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I redirected MacKay, no indication of notability other than being killed in the line of duty, clear case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Crain should also be redirected. They are sadly known for one event. A7 is invalid however, considering both subjects has been in the news lately but through tragic reasons. Secret ^account 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Crain got A7'd anyway. Disturbingly, MacKay was restored with this diff as rationale. I find no independent notability other than the WP:1E (compare WP:BLP1E), and I've replaced the redirect. If it comes back up, it should be walked through AfD with the nominator suggesting a redirect in order to gain a specific consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, weird stuff. It was tagged as an A7, and, administratively, I could have deleted it. However, just like Secret, I thought the better action was to redirect it (still do), but as I said on my talk page to the creator, the redirect is not an administrative decision and can therefore be reverted. After that, I bowed out and let another admin evaluate the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

• Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is frequently edited by IPs to remove "American", so that instead of "Filipino-American" he is rendered simply "Filipino". This in spite of the fact that he was sent to the US as a child to live with his grandparents. Today an established editor has adopted this edit and other similar. I consider this to be a BLP violation -- most of all because Vargas asserts unequivocally, "I am an American". Usually the reason for removing "American" is the fact that Vargas doesn't have US citizenship -- a POV that has no roots in Wikipedia policy. In reality, what we need to do here is follow the spirit of WP:BLPCAT, where ethnic identification follows the subject's self-identification. WP:OPENPARA is hardly argument to the contrary, particularly since it uses the phrase "in most cases". Again, usually the edit in question comes from a particular POV, designed to discredit Vargas's claim to be an American and to reinforce his status as an "alien". As such, the edit is a BLP violation, and I will revert it under the exemption to WP:3RR specified by WP:BLP, at least until matters are clarified here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA is very clear that "nationality" in the lead sentence means citizenship or legal permanent residence. This subject holds neither. American is not an ethnicity, people cannot claim citizenship or nationality, it can only be granted by nations. The lead sentence is completely accurate as "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino journalist living and working in the United States." In fact, the lack of American citizenship is part of the subject's notability, and misleading wording dilutes and hides this fact. Yworo (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are now on the bandwagon that says he is an illegal immigrant? I recommend that you stop trying to discredit this BLP subject. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to say he is, he has said it himself. You are the one who is repeatly inserting patently false information, which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. I'm removing false information. You need a source, which is an independent, third-party reliable source. The subject is not such a source, and no such statement or source for his citizenship is in the article. Your addition is unsupported by any sources, and according to WP:BLP, it must be. We err on the side of caution by omitting contentious material, not by including it. Yworo (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Filipino-American" is an ethnicity. If you don't understand that, you have no business on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And WP:OPENPARA says we don't put "ethnicity" in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"in most cases"; when ethnicity is paramount for the subject's notability, then we should certainly do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But his ethnicity is not paramount for his notability: it's his Philipines citizenship and lack of American citizenship which is the root of his notability. Here's a test, would he be just as notable if he was ethnically Chinese in the same position? Yes, he would be Therefore his ethnicity is immaterial. Yworo (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, you're dead in the water on this one. WP:OPENPARA does not say we don't put ethnicity in the lead paragraph -- in fact it says we do: "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"should not generally be emphasized in the opening" - you're emphasizing it. Duh! Yworo (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"The opening paragraph should have ... Context (location, nationality or ethnicity)" -- in this case, ethnicity, for the reasons I have given. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

His ethnicity is Filiapino, his nationality is Philippine. American is not an ethnicity. He doesn't get to choose that. "Amercan" is the word you are adding, and you don't have a source establishing citizenship. I am not the only editor complaining about your insistence on this. Other editors have also complained on your talk page. You are editing against consensus. Yworo (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Filipino-American" is an ethnicity. If you don't understand that, you have no business on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

An by insisting on that, you prove yourself not to be following WP:OPENPARA. His specific ethnicity is not important to his notability. It's his citizenship of one county while residing in another. If he were an ethnic Chinese (or Italian, or Jewish) Philippine citizen in the US without resident status, he'd be just as notable. He was born in the Philippines, he's a Philippine national. It's his natal nation. Yworo (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am involved and cannot take any administrative action. But I strongly urge both of you to stop edit-warring in the article, or you both risk being blocked by an uninvolved admin. I find it curious that both of you are claiming BLP exemptions, but I doubt another admin will be persuaded that any of your edits is exempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting again. Nomo's already hit four reverts, and I'm not the only editor he has reverted. Yworo (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, a reminder that you have previously reverted exactly the same edit: [44]. I understand that this is part of what makes you involved, but I'm puzzled that you are not noting agreement with the notion that "American" should not be removed from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired (should be in bed) and the issue is a somewhat complex one. Plus, the article has a lot of contentious history, which compounds the problem. But regardless of my view on the content, an edit-war is not the way to resolve the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here are my comments:

1. WP:OPENPARA, which is a guideline, not a policy, creates more problems than it resolves in complex cases. Part of the problem is Wikipedia's obsession with labels and the need to stick people into categories, literally or otherwise, and do a poor job of illuminating who they are.
2. Ethnicity isn't relevant here. We are talking about nationality and citizenship, not ethnicity.
3. Notability is the touchstone. There's no doubt that Vargas became notable in the U.S. To call him a "Filipino journalist", even with the phrase that comes after it about living and working in the U.S., is misleading. He was never a journalist in the Philippines.
4. To call him a Filipino-American journalist isn't great, either, for the same reason as the point just above this one.

• I suggest an alternative, one I've suggested before in cases like this, but it doesn't always appeal to editors who like labels (and there are many who do). I would propose that these two sentences replace the current opening sentence:

Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a journalist in the United States. He was born in the Philippines and moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 12.

• After these two sentences, we would have a new paragraph and continue with what is now the second sentence in the article ("Vargas was part of ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one issue is that he didn't "move to the US with his family when he was 12" -- he was sent by his mother with an "uncle" (not really an uncle) to live with his grandparents, who were already living there. Apart from that, the person who is happy with a label in this instance is Vargas: as noted above, he says unequivocally, "I am an American". Yworo kept repeating that "American" isn't an ethnicity, but I'm not seeing any basis for that claim, and I can't see why we wouldn't follow the principle of self-identification for ethnicity here -- though given that he was born in the Philippines it works better as Filipino-American. In other words, the current version -- with a term that is quite clearly about ethnicity -- doesn't have any problems in my view. The only issue is that it needs a hyphen; it would then be even more obvious that it's ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Either "American" or "Filipino-American" carry, to most readers, the implication of American citizenship. It is not possible to gain American citizenship by self-identification.

Claiming that "American" can be considered an ethnicity is rules-lawyering. In some abstract sense it's possible for "American" to be an ethnicity that does not imply citizenship--but a normal person who reads the article won't get that impression. And we need to avoid misleading that normal person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "American" (on its own) would be misleading in the way you describe. But "Filipino-American" isn't misleading in that way -- not least because "Filipino-American" is quite obviously not a citizenship. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a respect in which it wouldn't be misleading at all to identify him with American citizenship. Many people think of that term in its narrow legal sense -- but sociologists and others are unequivocal in defining citizenship more broadly in terms of (degrees of) membership in a society. In this respect Vargas is a citizen to a significant degree: he has a wide range of rights, he has been educated in American schools (thus acquiring American traits and habits), he has oodles of social capital in the US. His lack of formal legal citizenship is of course consequential, but the idea that he is "not an American citizen" is true only in a narrow legal sense. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should therefore identify him simply as "American" -- but I do think it undercuts the notion that it is misleading to include that term in our identification of him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomosk, the factual issue about when he moved here is easily disposed of. Citizenship is a legal term; sociologists can argue all they like about it and probably never agree anyway. Ken, I agree that American is not an ethnicity, but neither is Filipino, although I'm sure many editors and sociologists would argue about that one. My proposal avoids all of these labels and all of these arguments, but apparently no one thus far is interested in just reciting undisputed, sourced facts. Have fun with your labels, but it's unlikely a consensus will ever be reached, atlhough at some point, this debate, like all others before it, will peter out, and the article will be in whatever state it happens to be in at that moment in time - until the next time someone comes along and changes it and all hell breaks loose once more.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sociologists don't argue about it in these terms; it's really quite a consensual understanding. I suppose this is one of those issues where scholarly expertise (e.g. mine) is going to go by the wayside, via your confident assertion that it just is a legal term. In that context, your proposal is likely the least worst that can be accomplished. In the meantime, Vargas is back to being a "Filipino journalist". Is that acceptable? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with you about the sociology issue becaue I have no scholarly expertise. As for being back to a Filipino journalist, I saw the edit by the IP, but I don't think it's going to kill anyone if the article remains in a particular state, even if it's one that you (and I) disagree with while this is being hashed out. That's assuming it can be hashed out. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording along the lines that BBB23 suggests is much more neutral and completely verifiable. The OP is clearly siding with the subject to the extent of using language which misleads our readership. Yworo (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have BLP in the first place? Because we horribly offended a public figure by making inaccurate pronouncements of fact. Now we risk doing the same again. It would be equally offensive for Wikipedia, in its voice, to take a stance declaring that Vargas, the founder of an organization called Define American and someone who has said "I am an American", is in fact not an American. It would also be taking a POV on a hotly debated issue. We don't want to go down this road. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-identification is crucial for some things, but not for others. Let's take an extreme example. John Doe is born in England. He spends two weeks in America. He says I love I America and I consider myself an American. Are we going to call him American or English? In the same vein, Jane Doe is convicted of murder. Every appeal fails. She says she is innocent. Are we going to go with her self-serving statement in her article, even if there's some remote possibility it might be true?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more than self-interested self-identification, it's a hotly debated issue involving sociology, race, politics, etc. Wikipedia should not take sides. Best to go with the self-identification and leave the debate for the body of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that by including the contested word "American", that's just what's being done: taking sides. Leaving it out is leaving it for the reader to decide. Including it is siding with the subject. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel is absolutely correct on the serious BLP issue at hand, and, as Gamaliel's comment suggests, it should be remembered that the person to be protected under BLP is the subject of the article, not people with other opinions about, for example, how they think someone should be identified. And BLP trumps general guidelines for writing articles. As Nomoskedasticity and Bbb23 said, "Filipino journalist" is completely inaccurate and misleading and cannot remain as the identification. Although I don't particularly like labels, and can see Bbb23's point in leaving off descriptors, I nonetheless agree with Nomoskedasticity that "Filipino-American" is the better way to go in this article, as it accurately describes Vargas, is consistent with his self-identification, and does not imply anything about citizenship (i.e., there is no such citizenship as "Filipino-American"). Further , the wikilink that is there goes to Filipino American which clearly describes a demographic - not a citizenship- that Vargas certainly falls into. The fact is, he is Filipino by birth and early childhood alone, and is American by residence, education, employment, longevity (20 of his 31 years), and self-identification. We strive to avoid taking sides, so I guess we can't - yet - describe him solely as American. But describing him solely as Filipino is absolutely taking sides, and is surely demonstrating a larger POV on the subject that is unacceptable. I'd also point out that we have hundreds, likely thousands+ of articles about people who were not born in the US but are described as American, without our having any idea or evidence of what passport they carry, or whether or not they are American citizens. Making an issue here is POV about Vargas' public stance about his own status, and, again, is unacceptable. Tvoz/talk 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that we have hundreds of thousands of articles about people who are described as "American" but who we know are not American citizens. There may be articles about people whose passports we haven't seen, but that's not the same thing--although we haven't seen their passports, it's still likely that they are citizens, a likelihood that doesn't exist in this case. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do not follow our clear verifiability rules does not make a very convincing argument. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so what? Yworo (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I am saying that making this particular identification an issue is obviously POV, based on who Vargas is and what he stands for, and the fact that we don't make this point on many other articles illustrates the POV in play here. I do not think that the editors who insist on removing "American" are doing so as a neutral observance of article construction guidelines, I think they are doing so to advance a POV, and it is a POV with serious BLP implications. And please,in advance, spare me the AGF lecture- go back and read the edit summaries when they bother to put them in, and some of the arguments promoted on the talk page - the POV is obvious. Tvoz/talk 06:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit is precipitous, prejudges the discussion in progress at BLPN, and lacks consensus. I see no reason why it shouldn't be reverted. The instruction "now leave it" is curious -- perhaps Seb could elaborate? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's perfect, as proposed by Bbb23, executed by Seb, and supported by me (plus at least 2 IP editors). I'd say 5 editors is a good start to a new consensus. Yworo (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even see that someone else had the same idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As they say, great minds think alike. Yworo (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go counting IP editors who wanted to describe him as a Filipino journalist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would... they wanted "American" removed as inaccurate. It's been removed. Yworo (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And now one of them has made it quite clear that they really want to describe him as "Filipino journalist". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically, that's completely accurate. Arguably more accurate than Filipino-American. I'd prefer Philippine or Philippines journalist myself, as it seems more of a nationality than an ethnicity to me, but 1) I don't know if either of those spellings is acceptable or "politically correct" and 2) based on the RfC I doubt it would get consensus while I think some variant of Bbb23's proposal will. FWIW. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC

RfC now open on this issue, here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases‎

We could do with some extra eyes and opinions over at Catholic sex abuse cases‎. Since Pope Benedict retired, a couple of editors have wanted to insist that he did so as a result of the sex abuse scandals. There have been no reliable sources offered presenting this argument, although there has been a tendency by these editors to misinterpret articles which discuss his retirement and discuss the sex abuse scandal (typically as part of a retrospective looking back at his time as Pope) as presenting a connection from one to an other. This has extended to what appeared to be the deliberate misrepresentation of sources through very selective quotations.

Now the push is to change the lead to be predominately about Benedict, using a series of quotes exclusively from opponents without seemingly any attempt to provide balance. This seems to be a problem in regard to due weight in an article that is about the sex abuse cases in general, rather than Benedict in particular, as well as a BLP concern due to the extreme anti-Benedict POV being presented. But I'm open to being wrong here, so alternative eyes would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea how involved the Pope was to these criminal cases of sex crimes against children. He apparently was the one person ultimately in charge of handling these issues from the 1980s until he became Pope Benedict in 2005 when he became the leader of the church. The complete absence of his role from the lead of the article seems to be a telling omission. That the content wasn't written NPOV enough is a reason to fix it, but now it again is completely removed. I don't expect his biography will be fixed anytime soon as long as he's alive, but on the one article summarizing Catholic sex abuse cases of children worldwide we are abetting misinformation by not clearly reporting the central facts of his involvement good, bad, or otherwise. Here's a subtitle that clearly connects his resignation (how this recent spat started) "Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say."[45] So we clearly have mainstream news reporting on this and even church officials conceding there is an issue. No one is asking to violate policies but NPOV goes in every direction, well-sourced and notable criticism needs to be included. And this is the article that the criticism it belongs. Insomesia (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is where we start having problems. Benedict, as Ratzinger, wasn't the one person responsible for sexual abuse cases until Sacramentum sanctitatis tutela in 2001, which required all cases to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to that the Congregation was only responsible for rare cases. I think the difficulty is that you have been relying on non-neutral sources, which tends to skew coverage in a particular direction. Those opposed to Benedict and/or the Church tend to make sweeping statements, which we need to be very careful not to fall into.

As I've mentioned there, I'm fully in support of covering his involvement and including criticism. But the presentation needs to be balanced and appropriate. - 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Then please take a leading role in presenting this information rather than blocking efforts to share it. And sources other than the church itself and it's controlled media interests would help Insomesia (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing so, and I've added information about Benedict, both positive and negative. But there is a lot of reading to do, as a lot of the media reports tend to be polarised, and most of the academic work that I've found so far was from around 2010, which is problematic as it misses about half of his time as Pope. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been wikistalked and I've allowed crankiness to seep into my interactions with you and I regret that. I apologize. Anything you can do would be great, I think there are a number of points to be worked out and your knowledge would of course be helpful. Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

In the "background" section of the article see this version for example: [46]. There are references to several surveys which are summarized about the climate change consensus. One is an illustration and one citation is presented in the text. However the surveys don't match the criteria for inclusion into the list (i.e. the articles are less inclusive) and may give the impression the consensus is stronger than the list criteria. I feel this does not create a neutral tone or balanced articles. I also don't feel it is conservative to summarize an article that apparently disagrees with the subjects of the list without mentioning the article and list inclusion criteria are different (i.e. guilt by association). Thank you for any input. Theblog (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(A) Due to ungrammatical syntax and construction, most of these sentences are subject to various interpretations;

(B) Only policy argument made above has to do with an alleged NPOV violation, not BLP

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, the "proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". The bar-graph simply illustrates some aspects of the majority viewpoint - based on recent and reliable surveys from well-published sources. There is no BLP issue between the results of these surveys and the people in the list that I can see. --Nigelj (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A rename may fix. "List of people thought to be opposed to man-made climate change" type thing. I haven't seen the article but I assume there are non-scientists that could fit on the list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Criteria include being a published scientist in a peer-reviewed journal, so "scientist" in the title is necessary. In general, Theblog seems to be complaining that the definition of disagreement in the article is not identical to that used in the surveys. This is true, but why should the terms of a survey of scientific opinion be identical to the definition used in a Wikipedia article? Unless either the survey was based on the article or the article was based on the survey I would expect definitions to be slightly different; as long as they are both clearly trying to measure approximately the same thing, I think the surveys can provide useful context to the Wikipedia article. This is especially true of multiple surveys, which demonstrate that a variety of surveys using a variety of methods achieved similar results, which strengthens the power of those results. --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also highly unclear to me why any of this debate is relevant to BLP. Which person or persons is specifically damaged by the inclusion of these context providing graphs? --Merlinme (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

astrologer ananya

Astrologer Ananya

Good name: Soma Bhattacharjee. Father's name: Sudhir Chakraborty. Living in Sodepur, Kolkata, India.

Profession: Astrologer, Palmist.

For last two decades (1990-2012) she has been looking famous for her remarkable astrological prediction. She is also known for her social work. Through astrological prediction she can tell anybody's past, present and future. During 2011-1012 she was most demandable lady working with Ranveer(Gourab), though she is not belongs to political source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranveergourab (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for article creation. Be Bold and make it yourself.--Auric talk 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Furlong

Hi all, just doing some cleaning up before signing off, came across this guy, notably the Personal life section. Looks like a lot of UNDUE information, some of the stuff probably falls foul of the general BLP guidelines and this section is as long as, or longer than, the rest of the article. Care to take a look? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This material has been creeping in repeatedly for years - if taking a look, please watchlist it as well, because it will be back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all of the information seems to be sourced. Furlong was in several famous movies in the 1990s, but it's fair to say that since then he has been in the news mainly for his arrests/court cases/drug abuse. (92.7.21.215 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Segregating negative or postive information in a BLP is not appropriate. Spread it out and not place it all with a section devoted to the situation of controversy.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Susan L. Burke

• Susan L. Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of longterm COI edits, a new user is working on this, and I'm dubious as to neutrality of intent. More eyes on this would be appreciated. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now reverted to a perfectly good pre-COI version. COI editors warned. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Worth watchlisting. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the article's sources, it's unclear to me that WP:NOTABILITY is satisfied. Mostly the article is about legal matters with which Ms. Burke has been involved as counsel, but none of the reliable sources are actually about her. Google search didn't yield much of anything, so far as I could tell. Further thoughts would be appreciated, but I'm inclined to wonder if this isn't a candidate for deletion. I've begun a discussion at the article's talk page as well [47]. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall

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

Your extreme frankness concerning the work ethics of the Wikipedia editors and administrators while a refreshing change, is ill conceived at best. Stating editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long messages is just entirely off-putting so I will BRIEFLY state the Lauren Bacall page has had a sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations Template in the Personal life section for a month with no inline citations added. There is also a does not include any references or sources Template in both the in Popular culture and the In cartoons section for almost a year, also without any additional references or sources provided since the March 2012 request.

I do not wish to, nor do I know how to, add the request for references, inline citations, sources etc. Template(s) to the beginning of her page where it would appear it is needed as no one has paid any attention to the requests for references, sources, or inline citations the way they sit now. This is truly a tragedy, and Lauren certainly deserves better!--75.17.193.238 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Appalled

Dear Appalled, please be bold and pitch in to help fix the problems, that's the way we do things.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nabih Berri

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

Repeated insertions that violate Wikipedia's rules for biographies of Living persons have been consistently added to the same page by user Argo333 (User:Argo333)

Insertions include Violations to the three pillars: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar Layoun (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

gina athans

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

Hi , I am gina athans .

I have read the info on wikipedia and it is incorrect. I tried to correct and edit it , but I can't seem to delete the wrong and false information. Please can you delete it for me and allow me to put the CORRECT and FACTUAL information.

Thank you

<e-mail address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina.athans (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article and incorporated your info.--Auric talk 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Gustard

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

This item was originally created by a devoted collector and was a little flowery but nevertheless accurate. Subsequent editing by experienced Wikipedians has been undone and vandalised by Filthemill who seems driven by personal prejudice. Since this cannot be resolved and simply creates an inaccurate and belittling article I would like to see it deleted in it's entirety. I am Tim Gustard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone who is, apparently, not Tim Gustard is repeatedly re-adding details (sourced to online auction sites) stating that some of Gustard's works sold for a few hundred or few thousand pounds each. I don't see that this has any relevance to the biography of Gustard, unless an independent reliable source actually comments on it. It does indeed appear to be added for the purpose of belittling Gustard. I'd welcome thoughts from other editors as to the suitability of this material for inclusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message on that editor's talk page. I expected to see that it was a new editor; turns out it wasn't, and so I haven't been particularly gentle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new essay WP:DBPGWRBBLP - "don't be particularly gentle with regulars breaching BLP", to go alongside WP:DTTR. In other weird coincidences, it seems that if you need any fish to administer a trouting, the BLP subject may be able to help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to provide you with a nice wet trout! I appreciate you all taking an interest, I've been asking for the article to be deleted but I hope one of you may be prepared to write a much better one. I am Tim Gustard and you can contact me on <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• The editor in question is not being terribly cooperative, and I think the subject is not in fact notable per WP:ARTIST, so I've prodded it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've seconded the prod. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

David Bergman (journalist)

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

Is it normal practice in a BLP to also have biographical information of wives and father in laws? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not unusual to include information about relations, particularly if the related person is notable. For example, the article Tony Blair mentions what his wife does, as it should. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, especially in this particular case where the family members are high-profile and public figures. Crtew (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That I get, but should it say who she has defended in court? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view no, as it is not relevant to this article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably there to prove notability, because she has no article.--Auric talk 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank Farrelly

Frank Farrelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I think this article is too old to speedy for no sources. Someone at help desk thinks it isn't accurate. I think the IP is stating that the subject's work is controversial and wants us to sling some mud into the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean Wikipedia:Help desk#this page is inaccurate? Not sure who's mentioned speedying it, article is indeed in need of a massive overhaul. Is he even notable? GiantSnowman 15:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that it had no sources. I think bios from 2010 on can be speedied as no sources. Should we tag it for AfD and see if that discussion brings some sources and fixes?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of WP:BLPPROD? Any BLP, created after 18 March 2010, can be tagged and will be deleted after 10 days if there are no sources - however this does have sources (present as ELs rather than inline) and was created back in 2005 so would not be eligible on two fronts. I think taking to AFD is sensible, shall I let you do the honours? GiantSnowman 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

here. Moving discussion to afd.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dănuț Marcu

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

I'm really uncomfortable about this one. The sources are impeccable, so it doesn't appear worthy of a speedy, but there's no question that the article exists solely to disparage the subject, and the subject is notable only in the context of his plagiarism. Suggestions? Ray^Talk 15:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuke it and call it a day. --Malerooster (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have speedied it as an attack page. If it's an attack page, it's worthy of a speedy, even if impeccably cited. The article would have to be considerably longer, include biographical material, and cover the subject's work at length in order to support such a detailed section on accusations of plagiarism. Yworo (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be deleted, but this would have to be done via AfD, as it doesn't meet the criteria specified for G10. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article now at AfD. On investigation, he easily meets WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem is really much deeper than is being considered. WP:PROF is based on the implicit assumption that the works attributed to the subject were produced by the subject. Using WP:PROF to determine the subject's notability fails if the works are plagiarized. Plagiarized works could only support the notability of the original author, not the plagiarist. Similarly with citations to the works. Basically, the claim that the subject meets WP:PROF in the first place is itself based on unreliable sources, and must be discounted.

Second, WP:CIRCULAR has been involved. Some of the sources used to support the accusations of plagiarism were in fact in part based on the Wikipedia article, for example, this source. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we cannot only not use that source, we'd not be able to use any sources which refer to or based their conclusions in part upon it.

You see where I'm going with this? The whole thing is a sinkhole with no foundation, either for notability based on works, or notability based on being a "famous plagiarist". We should not have an article on this individual at all. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think "famous plagiarist" is a valid ground. But that's not apparent here for lack of multiple reliable mainstream sources. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the conversation is occurring in three different places. Elsewhere I wrote:

I have to object to all the sources used to cite the plagiarism facts. They are primary sources, written and published by the reviewers and editors to whom the the manuscripts were submitted, reporting on an event in which they were involved. The facts of "ban notices" cannot be sourced to the ban notices themselves. They have to be sourced to third-party reports about the ban notices. The way the article is done, it constitutes original research based on primary, self-published sources (i.e. the writers of the notices are not independent of the publishers of the notices). This is strictly forbidden by the BLP policy, which does not even admit the exception of self-publication by known experts allowed elsewhere. How the heck can this pass BLP?

Yworo (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Salvatore Fisichella

• Salvatore Fisichella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After cutting passages taken directly from a web biography, I read the talk page and found that permission had been granted to copy the material. Nonetheless, it's unsourced and unencyclopedic in tone, hails from a non neutral source, and was added by a WP:COI account over 4 years ago. For the moment I've restored the content and thrown templates on the article, but the stuff has to go. Other thoughts? 99.136.254.88 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Permission to copy does not mean we give permission to add unsourced and unencyclopedic content. I would just go ahead and cut out the offending material leaving a note on the talk page explaining why you have done so. I think we need to make it more clear that even if permission to use copyrighted material, particularly from connected websites, is given, the tone of such material will almost certainly be inappropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Rhetorical question, but why do we permit the use of copyrighted material when it's promotional in tone and derives from an inappropriate source? Which in my experience has nearly always been the case. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't permit it. If someone wants to make the text of their website etc available under a free license that's great, we will look at it and see if it's useful. But the mere fact that such material is available for use, does not mean that it should be used or that we are obligated to use it. Same goes for images - for example I have uploaded some of my own images to Commons. If they are useful great, but just because I am making them available does not mean they have to be used.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. We've all seen single purpose users who believe that once their website text is made available it can be copied from whole cloth, and anyone who messes with it is a vandal. It's what happened with this bio in 2008, and the editors there eventually let it slide. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this edit of yours is perfectly appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--I'm not new to the rodeo, and generally save my copy edit smarts, such as they are, for print media now. I also think it's a bit of a waste to whittle down the content to something that's still unreferenced. But we all kill time between meals one way or another. :) 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The bio is puffy amd all copyvios must be removed by Wikipedia policy - this is not really optional. Collect (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like permission was granted and properly through OTRS. See next to last section on article talk page. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the issue isn't copyvio, it's the fact that the text that has been released is spammy, so as I said above it should still be despammed and depuffed even though the copyvio issue has been dealt with.--ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Huang

• Kenneth Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Truth-from-China (talk · contribs)
• Truth-from-Hongkong (talk · contribs)
• Fact-China (talk · contribs)

The entry has become a poorly formatted piece, a cluster of bullet points in chronological order. It seems that several accounts--perhaps the same person, also using IPs--have taken ownership, and this raises the possibility that WP:COI is a factor. What's needed is a sweeping rewrite to make this an encyclopedic entry, but first I'd guess the interested parties may need to be eased out for a bit. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the article be returned to a far better version from 2010 [48], and any important content since can be added with references. I'm bringing this here for more eyes, because making any improvement is apt to meet resistance from the above mentioned and non-communicative account, er, accounts. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)