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.

William C. Rader (again)

William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can the Skeptics Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll be used for content to describe William C. Rader's medical practice? such as stating that

• Carroll says Rader's methods are no more scientific than a faith healer and that Rader has produced no "evidence of scientific plausibility for his work,"?

Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions must be stated as opinions and ascribed as such. The work in question is not usable as a source for factual claims, as you can note by seeing its origins - everything after the book publication in 2003 is pure SPS and a personal website without any "editorial oversight." The printed book does not contain the word "rader" AFAICT. Which is pretty dispositive that the SPS is not usable for much in any BLP. Collect (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has, as you point out, been published the topic area, Carroll would seem to meet the SPS criteria. Why is it that you don't think he does? The proposed statements are not about Rader but about the scientific nature (or complete lack thereof) of his methods.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And again note that SPS sources must meet the same stringent requirements as sources as any other sources for "contentious claims" about a living person. I was operating on the assumption that Rader is a living person and that the claim is "contentious." Find another source if you wish a contentious claim to be given as fact in a BLP. From here, Carroll's opinions look like ... opinions. Collect (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont really think that it is "contentious" to point out that processes do not follow standard accepted scientific and medical procedures. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what "BLP" sometimes means around here: with SPS, the "encyclopaedia" article about Rader can be half sourced to his own website, but a sensible and pertinent observation by a well-qualified expert can be excluded. Any measure of common sense tells us that this is absurd, serving no purpose whatsoever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then rewrite WP:BLP to say "contentious claims by a person who is right are always usable." Unfortunately, that is not what the policy says right now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I wouldn't dream of it. It's highly important that our encyclopedia should protect the reputations of people who practice unproven and risky medical interventions. Please think of the poor quacks! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

He's being called a quack by source that we're not allowed to use. As far as we're concerned, he's *not* a quack, because we have no reason to believe he is. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The BLP standards are clear; we can't say he's a quack without a reliable source, and a reliable self-published source is not "reliable" for Wikipedia purposes. We certainly are allowed to remove any assertions that he is not a quack, especially from his own publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fred Hiatt

• Fred Hiatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of users, predominantly Wormcast, it looks like, have done an impressive job forming a coherent, wide-ranging article on Fred Hiatt. While each statement is cited and everything seems to be factually correct, I believe there are subtle but significant NPOV issues in the article. Mr. Hiatt is framed by the article as a significantly right-leaning neocon, an implication I believe he would strongly dispute.

For example, over the article's history, numerous references to The Post's opinions on environmental issues have been included, and in the majority of those cases The Post took the 'green' stance. However, only a general acknowledgement of The Post's usual stance is made, and significantly greater text goes to a discussion of Keystone XL, an issue The Post took the more conservative stance on. While the veracity of the text is not in question, the overall impression is misleading and perhaps comes with an agenda. The same trend of lip-service to liberal opinions and extensive discussion of conservative exceptions to these trends holds true with regards to foreign policy (compare the coverage of Syria, Cambodia, Mali, Afghanistan, North Korea and Japan to Iraq), domestic policy (gay and civil rights, immigration, vs. "warmed to [Bush]'s Social Security proposal), etc.

Going through the revision history, a user poohshap, (possibly his wife? see article text) made significant changes to the text, and many NPOV issues were corrected. I went through that revision pretty critically b/c of the obvious conflict of interest issues, but it seemed neutral (perhaps not surprising if she's a journalist). However over the next month or so, Wormcast undid a significant portion of these edits and reintroduced the slanted tone. Dear BLP gurus, this battle seems unproductive and unlikely to lead to a better, more encyclopedic article. How should we proceed?

Many thanks, Joehjoeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Poor BLP - seemed to wish to ascribe the national newspaper decline to one person <g> and also managed to make the "neocon" charge appear more widespread than the actual sources support (opinions in any BLP must be so noted). Collect (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Collect's edits, the page has been extensively edited to once again espouse a particular point of view, and by the same user. Thoughts? Joehjoeh (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An assertion about a living Wikipedia editor on Jimbo's talkpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jimbo's talk page is apparently now a forum for declaring things like this about living persons who also happen to be Wikipedia editors. It's the c word that's particularly problematic. (I know exactly who's being referred to, as do Jimbo and at least a few hundred other people.) I'm not going to edit war to remove it - though WP:BLP says I should - but I'd welcome thoughtful opinion and review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any other considerations, that should probably be revdel'ed. Any admin can do that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no-one is particularly interested in using revdel on this, and the unregistered editor got bored of edit-warring on it a couple of days ago --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ping Fu

• Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ping Fu has been on the receiving end of an extremely aggressive internet campaign (amazon, and comments in online articles about her) because of a book that she wrote. There has been ongoing discussion and relative consensus on the talk page, but brand new single purpose accounts keep appearing to slant the article. More eyes would be helpful. First Light (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New single purpose accounts are back adding negative unsourced material. May be socks of the same account. I'm at 3rr, but don't plan on going over that, even though it's negative unsourced material in a WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If it gets too bad, remember to request protection at WP:RFPP. Or ask here and someone will do it. I see the warring has subsided though. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As the wider internet attacks on Ping Fu continue, more and more new accounts are coming here to slant the POV. The Ping Fu page is still neutral, so they have created multiple new POV fork articles. All were deleted, except the possibly notable Bend, Not Break, about her book. It's already at AfD, and likely to be kept, but this new article is attracting quite a negative slant. Help by uninvolved neutral editors is needed at both of her articles, especially the book article now. First Light (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvi Sirmed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please take note of this diff. It is both defamatory and lacks neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvi_Sirmed&diff=next&oldid=541816189

Taken care of by User:Nomoskedasticity. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Bain/ Judith Collins defamation

I have removed defamatory material about Judith Collins from the David Bain page David Bain.

Can someone please look into this? Jc press sec (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that information was correctly sourced and it does not constitute a BLP violation. There is no defamation there, unless you can point it out for us? I've reverted your changes. We do not remove criticism from articles because someone doesn't like it. What you can do is provide a properly-sourced counterpoint to that claim. Further, I'd suggest you go and create another account, as the idea that you are Mrs. Collin's press secretary is counter to our policies on usernames, not to mention your obvious conflict of interest. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not that the material is improperly sourced or that there is criticism on the page. The issue is that the Wiki article alleges Collins leaked details of a report to the media. That is a defamatory statement, without basis or reference. I have a COI, it is declared and I have outed myself on the Judith Collins talk page. I do not edit content. That's why I have the username that I do Jc press sec (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the paragraph you completely (and arbitrarily) excised from the article to reflect the fact that it was an allegation made by the accused's supporter in an op-ed piece, even though that was a matter of accuracy and not defamation. However, you should not be editing anything related to Judith Collins. If you have a problem with material in articles, request the changes on their respective talk pages so that other non-involved editors without a conflict of interest may consider and act on them. It matters not that you have told us who you are. Please go and read the policy that covers this, if you haven't already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the material in question in accordance with WP:BLP (Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]) and WP:COI policy (An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be fixed quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.) So I also asked for help on WP:BLPN. I note your rewording of the material in question is doubtful ("Karam alleged that Jistice (sic) Minister Judith Collins had leaked the report to the press.") as nowhere in the referenced article did Karam make that allegation - because that would be defamatory.

If you care to read the Judith Collins talk page, you will see that I have already stated I DO NOT edit the page, and have not other than putting up an appropriately licenced photograph as requested by other editors. You will also note that I have already told other editors that I would only contribute material/edit requests to the talk page only, for consideration by other non-involved editors.Jc press sec (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future, instead of doing contentious edits (by nature of you conflict of interest), and unless the BLP violations are gross and require immediate attention (as opposed to having been there for a while), please request the changes or report them here instead of making them yourself. Further to your assertion that the cited source does not allege a leak: On September 10 the Herald reported on its front page that Justice Binnie found that David Bain was innocent and recommended compensation be paid. This was obviously a leak. At that time we understood the only people to have seen the report were Justice Binnie and the minister. So the wording was problematic, but the allegation is there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right - the wording was problematic, but worse than that it was also defamatory.The original wording in the Wiki article was "...she leaked details...to the media". This is a very explicit statement. Defamation occurs when a (untrue) statement about a person is made, and that statement is not supported by any actual evidence. It is factually incorrect. The onus of truth is on the person making the statement to provide the evidence.

And so, I accept this statement was referenced back to a cited source article which you say contained the ‘allegation’. But I would ask you to please note that the ‘allegation’ in the cited source is far from explicit. That article is carefully and specifically worded to avoid making any such explicit statement alleging Collins is the source of the leak e.g. it states "This was obviously a leak" (no one disputes there was a leak) then says "At the time, we 'understood' the only people to have seen the report were Justice Binnie and the minister".

As you can see, by using specifically selected words, the author of the cited source article has been very careful to avoid making an explicit allegation, because without any actual proof or evidence, this would be defamatory.

Collins was not responsible for any leak. To say otherwise is defamatory.

Unfortunately, the original Wiki article text ("...she leaked details...to the media") was not so careful, which is why it needed to be deleted. This was not an arbitrary deletion or contentious edit. I did this in accordance with WP:COI and WP:BLP policy and posted on this noticeboard. I believe the statement was a gross BLP violation and needed immediate attention. The fact that the statement had been in the article for some time before it was noticed, only makes matters worse as it means the defamation had continued for some time.

We are talking about the biography of a living person here, and as such, issues of defamation or potential defamation should be taken very seriously. I would have expected more knowledgeable support from Wiki editors on this issue. Jc press sec (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We are all concerned about biographies here. That's what we do. The fact remains that your conflict of interest gives way to the impression that you are scrubbing articles that criticize your employer. So next time you have an issue with any material that references Collins, as long as it does not require immediate and urgent action, please request assistance from other editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This seems to be related to the topic on self-published sources near the top of this page. The 'elephant in the room' here is that this and other articles concerning the New Zealand justice system are being filled with slanted material by an editor who is in significant off-Wiki conflict with the system and some of its key stakeholders and are in some cases being used to advertise a self-published polemic on the subject. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 for further details. I notice that Wikipedia:COI#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know states "You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life".

JC Press Sec - Please don't bandy around words such as "defamation" while bringing up concerns about false claims. Wikipedia has a very strong prohibition on anything that looks like a legal threat, because of the chilling effect such a comment would have on the editors who create content here. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. If something needs fixed urgently, take it to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. (International editors: "defamation" in New Zealand law includes what is called "libel" in other jurisdictions). Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Very Serious People

User:CartoonDiablo created an article called Very Serious People in May of 2012 and almost immediately added a picture of Paul Ryan with the statement (unattributed) "Paul Ryan has been called "the quintessential Very Serious Person". CartoonDiablo stated in the creation of the article that this was a "sarcastically derogatory phrase" This would appear to be a pretty clear violation of WP:MUG and thus WP:BLP. The image serves no purpose other than to prominently note that a blogger doesn't seem to like Ryan all that much.

How this passed AfD I don't know, since it seems to be used primarily by Paul Krugman to denigrate people that simply disagree with him, but that aside, there is no reason to include a picture of Paul Ryan simply to denigrate him based off the words of a couple of bloggers and Paul Krugman who is not shy about his dislike of Ryan either. Arzel (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Denigrate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Adding: my post was a response to a misspelling above, now changed. No biggie... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Should we put an image of Dan Quayle in the potatoe article under etymology? WP:mug may apply here unless we include more than one image of VSPs with sources that they are such.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely a BLP issue per MUG.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been avoiding US politics issues since my beer can/firewood rant. Would someone like to rem the image pending consensus of including many or none?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also the issue of listing people as violating BLP. If an article like Feminazi can list living people I don't see how this would violate that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but perhaps that bears examination as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Upon examination of both of these articles, the listing of sourced examples (read persons identified) are not BLP. The image issue however is clearly a BLP violation as the photo is used out of context.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to have lists of people in this manner. The extraordinary focus on Ryan in the wording is, however, undue. It appears to be the view of one person, and from the sources given, similar wording could be applied to others, which is even a worse idea. Arzel (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So we're meant to have an article on "VS People" but not give any examples of the sort of people the term has been applied to? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the definition, there is no need for a list of people that some people think are such. However, I simply think it is a bad idea. Focus on the second part of my statement. Arzel (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally. I think this is a Very Stupid Phrase. But we do have RS examples, so it's not BLP to include them.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said that the list of a BLP issue. I think part of it was WP:UNDUE and I don't think it is neccessary, but this was not the focus of my creating this section. Arzel (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO this is not a BLP issue; we have numerous such articles, see Category:Pejorative terms for people, and many of them include lists of examples of who the term is applied to. However, I think a photo of one of the targets is inappropriate and gives undue weight to that one person, out of many to whom the term is applied. So my opinion is: keep the article and the list of people, but not the photo. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, it would be much better to use non-living people as examples. Since most pejoratives have been around for a long time, I see no justifiable reason for using living examples when deceased ones should be readily available. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This may be a case where BLP policy/guidelines clash with censorship ones. Images of dead people and only blue links to living ones?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note here, is we cannot use the instance of name-calling as a source. That's an editorial opinion and a primary source, not in itself either a reliable source or making the incident a notable event. For a living person, the source would have to be an uninvolved and neutral third-party reporting on the incident of name-calling. This should reduce the lists of living examples considerably. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the photo, but not because of WP:MUG. The description for the photo says it shows Ryan giving a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. From the background and the way he's dressed, I can believe that. He wasn't dragged out of bed and photographed against his will. I'm sure there are more flattering photos of him, but it doesn't resemble a mug shot. His hair is combed and he could have put on make-up had he wanted to. I agree that the article gave too much emphasis to Ryan and that if there are to be photos in it, they shouldn't be of just one person, or for that matter, people from one political party. —rybec 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUG is not reserved for actual mug shots. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. When I said it doesn't resemble a mug shot, I meant that it isn't even similar to one. I was also trying to make the point that a politician giving a speech at a conference expects to be photographed. You never explained why you think WP:MUG pertains. —rybec 00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The real problem with the passage is the use of the passive voice. Actually, it seems to be problem throughout the article. Reading between the lines, it appears to be a term of ridicule specifically targeting conservatives. It would make as much sense to put up Krugman's picture saying "this guy calls other people 'VSP' a lot." The whole thing needs to be much more up front about who is calling whom this name. BTW, I don't think this particular picture is a problem; it's the context which is an issue. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the term is not directed at "conservatives". Not at all. It is targeting people who are generally accepted by the media and the common wisdom to be sages, voices of wisdom, moderates - "Washington insiders that the political establishment respects and listens to" - but who often promote ideas that Krugman, Benen and the others believe are wrong-headed or foolish, such as austerity during a down economy (a bipartisan pursuit these days), financial deregulation, etc. You could say they are promoting some conservative ideas, but they are not identified either by themselves or by others as conservatives. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The picutre draws WP:UNDUE attention to Paul Ryan, who would seem to be the primary target of Krugman. Arzel (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone described Ryan as extremely serious? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As that is an irrelevant question, I doubt it needs an answer. WP:BLP seems all-encompassing, and that is what needs to be discussed: Do images also need to meet the WP:BLP strictures about claims? And is "X called Y a (name)" a "contentious claim" ? And extreme example is the "santorum" campaign - where AfD found the "campaign" to be notable, but using it as a claim about a specific person was subject to BLP concerns. Collect (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under that section of BLP. He was, in fact, called a name; that's not contentious in the sense of someone doubting whether it is true.

The reason it shouldn't be in the article is that even true things don't necessarily belong in an article, which is a different part of BLP. For instance, WP:BLPGOSSIP says that we should consider whether "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." (Of course this isn't an article directly about the subject, but the BLP policy later clarifies that it applies everywhere.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lim May Zhee

I just reverted some particularly ugly content from this. Could it please be expunged from the history please? I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to the revdel IRC to the top of this BLPN page. Just click the little green 'connect' link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I've suppressed a bunch of edits and blocked some IPs. Please let me know if I missed anything or there's any repeat offending there or elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Raffi Hovannisian

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raffi_Hovannisian&diff=542138982&oldid=542053752

There have been repeated attempts to vandalism this page with unreferenced, potentially defamatory and libelous allegations; not wishing to repeat them, they appear in the introduction of the article.

I have tried to mediate through the talk page and instruct about referencing but the page is continually vandalized. I delete the defamatory information or undo their edits but then my edits are undone or the defamation added again.

It is not done by a registered user; and is odd that it seems not to be one single person as it is done by various IP addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. If it gets too bad I'll request protection. What's the situation, allegations about embezzlement and so on? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What Frog said.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've suppressed the libellous edits. Any further problems, or if you think I've missed anything, please drop me a line onwiki or via my email - it's enabled. I'm prepared to start blocking IPs or accounts for any recurrences from now. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jason A. Archinaco

Jason A. Archinaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a self-posted ad by the lawyer who is the subject of the article. Lists several cases he's won, and absolutely nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.55.173 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I prodded it. I expect it will be contested, so we'll see everybody at AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Better call Saul.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Should articles on minors be subject to stricter/quicker actions - Jamie Curry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is curtly an AfD on Jamie Curry, a 16 year old blogger. I believe that she isn't notable, and normally would be happy to let the AFD run its course. But the article is attracting frequent vandalism. We don't know if it is a vanity article or a subtle attack article (ie, made just to embarrass her). So, should we just let it play out (maybe with semi protection on the article for now) or should articles on minors with borderline notability and poor references be subject to tighter controls, maybe even a new CSD classification? The-Pope (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a particular consideration for minors, other than to just treat this as what it is - a BLP. If it is being vandalized or is the subject of disruptive or contentious edits then the procedure is the same: Protect and/or preventive blocks on offending accounts. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We're already pretty strict and act quickly when it comes to regular BLPs. What else do we need to do? Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I know that certain editors have trigger alerts specially aimed at issues concerning minors, so they do get some special consideration already.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ongoing deletion discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Curry. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rawi Abdelal

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

There is continuing vandalism of the page about Rawi Abdelal: continuous efforts to point readers to "Political Science Job Rumors" or "PSJR" as a means to spread gossip that, in that other anonymous forum, borders on libel. At this point literally the only edits of that page over the past month have been to introduce vandalism and the efforts of other Wikipedia editors to undo it. Given concerns about notability, and the fact that the only people editing the page are trying to create or undo trouble, surely it is time to move toward deletion of this page. A bot caught one of the recent edits, but the next one was edited twice in quick succession so as, one suspects, to avoid the attention of the bot. Meanwhile, the page could use the monitoring of other editors to continue to remove efforts to cite to "PSJR" and similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.5.55 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like petty vandalism (grudge?). Thank you for reporting this, I've watchlisted it and we'll make sure it stays clean. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Barry O'Callaghan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I get a second opinion on the page of Barry O'Callaghan which seems to have been edited recently to add unreferenced advertising for this individuals latest business ventures. 149.241.11.230 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone just pasted some text in there? It's already reverted. The user did the same thing to EMPGI, which I just reverted also. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christina Westover

• Christina Westover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article history (i just edited it out), has unsourced, highly potentially defamatory material. I dont know yet if she is notable (im researching it), but maybe we can delete and recreate as is without the article history? I dont know policy on this, but the history is really, really bad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I did a couple of perfunctory searches and found nothing about her except these: [1] [2] [3]. A quick look at those showed nothing supporting the disparaging statements. I've proposed deletion of the article for lack of notability. The disparaging statements were in the article when it was first created—the other contributions of the article's creator might bear some looking-into. For example, that person also edited the Andy Dene Morris article (it claims its subject is partner to Christina Westover), where I saw similar unsourced disparaging statements. I see that Mercurywoodrose is taking care of that article, too. —rybec 09:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I didnt actually fix up the Morris article, but i just looked at its history, wow, that was bad too. thanks for your diligence. i think they should both be deleted as nonnotable, wont dispute that, and of course it solves this problem. I have no prejudice against recreation if they become notable at a later date, but maybe with some sort of protection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilma Dunaway

• Wilma Dunaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears that the "Biography" section of this article was written by the subject, is not NPOV or V, besides the single citation of the subject's own website, which would seem to violate the WP:SELFPUB policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.3.138 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but that one reference is what's keeping that article from being PRODed as an unsourced BLP. Still, that's an editing and/or notability issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Yoo

• Richard Yoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Yworo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone probably affiliated with the subject (paid PR?) keeps trying to WP:PEACOCK the article with the sentence, "Richard Yoo frequents the exclusive and invite-only TED conference in California." However, they have no source for "frequents" and there is no reason except to puff up the subject to call TED "exclusive and invite-only". The reader can of course find all about TED by clicking through the link. "exclusive and invite-only" are hardly the most notable or informative things that could be said about TED here.

They continue to attempt to restore this language, using WP:SYNTHESIS from such facts as his having a profile page and a blog at TED, that there is an application to apply for an invitation to TED, etc. Clear puffery based on misuse of sources. No other editors seem to be watching the article so it could use some more eyes and possibly more critical material. Yworo (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's weird. You'd think once notability has been established they'd leave well enough alone? Anyway, watchlisted. If they keep adding that maybe we can request a short preventive block. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dănuț Marcu

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

deletion deletion review

I think we need to take a look at this again. It was deleted, then the deletion was overturned.

As far as I can tell, this article is mainly here to spread the word that the subject is a plagiarist, falling under WP:COATRACK. He does seem to have committed plagiarism, but he doesn't seem to be notable for it. The sources given for him being notable for plagiarism amount to:

• Reports by a journal that he plagiarized in that journal. That's not a third party source, that's a first party source. A third party source would be a non-involved party reporting on it; a journal reporting because they were involved doesn't count.
• Reports in that journal of other incidents of plagiarism. That isn't really a third party source either; the journal only cares about incidents they were not involved in because of those incidents' connection to the one they were involved in.
• A general study of plagiarism that happens to use him as an example. That violates the last part of WP:INDEPTH; using an event to highlight a "type of event generally" doesn't establish notability.
• Mathematical Review reviews which are third party sources, but are not significant coverage. They would be reviewing him whether or not he committed plagiarism and so the fact that they mention plagiarism doesn't make him notable for it. (If they had called him an average writer instead, that certainly wouldn't make him notable for being an average writer.)

Furthermore, the article contains almost no information about him other than the plagiarism. According to WP:HARM,

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life.

Although WP:HARM mentions it in the context of people connected to one event, it sounds like it would also apply to a series of related events. An article that is mostly about his plagiarism cannot be considered a full and balanced bibliography.
The administrator that reversed the deletion seems to have done so because of the arguments about circular references and failing WP:PROF, which I agree are weak, but those weren't the only arguments. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

An article that is mostly about plagiarism is fine for a person who is famous as a plagiarist, just as an article that is mostly about murders is fine for a person who is famous as a murderer or an article that is mostly about paintings and art exhibits is fine for a person who is famous as an artist. That argument is completely specious, as is the "coatrack" argument: the article doesn't exist to publicize his plagiarism (the journals in which he plagiarised have done a fine job of that) but rather to take note of someone who is notable for something, as all of our biographical articles do.

As for the quality of the sourcing: we have sources that document individual cases of plagiarism or that document his banning from individual journals; and the sources that do only that much are fine for verifiability but don't really speak to notability. But we also have other sources (particularly the ones in footnotes 2-5, on the "Marcu is frequently accused of plagiarism" sentence, but also some of the journal editorials) that are not about individual events of plagiarism or banning but rather look at the pattern of events as a whole, and conclude that he is famous (or "notorious" as some of the sources state) as a plagiarist. Whether these overview sources are doing so for the purpose of justifying a banning, or of using him as an example of a general phenomenon, or whatever other purpose, is irrelevant: what is important is that they explicitly argue not just that he is a plagiarist but that he is famous as one. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not famous as a plagiarist, having not been covered in any significant way in independent, third-party, reliable sources. The majority of sources are not independent, but rather publishers who got egg on their face when they were fooled by him. Those sources don't count toward notability. Yworo (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What sophistry. I completely agree that the majority of sources don't count towards notability; I said so above. But that is very very different from having no sources that count towards notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have serious issues on BLP grounds with this article as I argued at the AfD. I missed the DRV (seems I wasn't the only one) perhaps because the edit summary was so obscure that I ignored it on my watchlist. He's just not notable as an individual and BLP1E says that if the plagiarism issue is what's notable, it should be the incident, not the biography, that has an article. The chap himself does not appear to be the subject of in-depth coverage in any reliable secondary sources. --Dweller (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that technically, he committed plagiarism more than once, so it's not one event, and BLP1E doesn't allow for one series of related events. However, that line in WP:HARM covers similar ground and is not restricted to being about one event (WP:HARM then applies the principle to the case of one event, but the principle itself doesn't mention one event._ Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Yworo and Ken. It's also troubling that there's so little actual biographical coverage of this subject that an article on him has to be about plagiarism. If an article on a plagiarist is warranted, multiple unrelated parties will have given the topic substantial coverage. And hopefully, some real biographical information beyond, say, just gender and nationality. JFHJr (㊟) 06:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Still

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The date of his marriage to his third wife was January 16, 2013 not January 23, 2013.

As his third wife, I would like the date corrected.

Thank you,

Boo Hammer Still, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaibab1 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There is not even a source for the marriage, so I've removed the claim entirely. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To expand upon Yworo's comment, we can't verify what was there, and we can't verify what you're telling us, so we need to remove the fact completely, see WP:BLP. That said, if you do have a source for the information in question, please provide it so we can put the information back on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Swallow

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

There is a WP:SPA who has been adding negative material to this article. If you go back to the February 8 version of the article, there were two sentences about Swallow's problems in the Politics section. Originally, the spa tried to add more information while leaving the old information, thereby creating an obvious redundancy problem, among other things. After I reverted that, they have come back and removed the two sentences and created a much larger section called, you guessed it, "Controversies". And to make sure everyone knows how important and how sourced the material is, there many, many citations to local newspapers.

I've reverted because it's WP:UNDUE and some of it is WP:COATRACK (it's fairly complicated). I don't object to what was originally there (or some variant thereof), but that's apparently not damning enough for the spa.

If anyone has some time to look at the issues, that'd be great. For the moment, I'm leaving in place what the editor put in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Looks like it was already reverted again. It seems to me like the first paragraph is more than enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The added material is not negative or excessive. The statements added to the article narrative are neutral and factual, and frankly extremely reserved considering the level of media coverage this issue has been receiving in Utah. The neutral factual statements are backed up by a number of footnotes that do not interrupt the narrative but provide a useful research tool for anyone who wants to research the foundation for the neutral statements.

None of the material is WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. Anyone who does even a casual perusing of the provided footnotes will discover that the article narrative is as described: neutral, factual, and conservative. I invite anyone to actually read the articles provided as footnotes, and then make a reasoned, informed argument that the article additions are anything other than I have described here.Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

At least two of the references used in the article are to editorials critical of Swallow in the major Salt Lake City newspapers. These are the political opinions of the editors rather than objective journalism, and should be removed as references. Clearly, Swallow is involved in a major scandal and the article needs to report that. But he has not yet been formally accused let alone convicted of any wrongdoing, so is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The article must be conservative in reporting the scandal, especially before some definitive development such as a conviction or a resignation. The flood of references on this matter, many saying pretty much the same sorts of things, tends to create the impression that Swallow is guilty of something. In my opinion, it should be toned way down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article back to the February 8 version, which eliminates the separate Controversies section and pares back the material to something more due and neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The footnotes to the editorials are included to support the position that while the investigation is ongoing, the controversy has led to wide-spread support for ethics reform in Utah. This is not about the BLP policy, or WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. This is about individuals trying to protect a politician's Wikipedia page from truthful, neutral information. The footnotes serve one purpose: to allow a more-than-casual Wikipedia user to easily research the issue further. There can be only one reason anyone wouldn't want to make that available - to make it more difficult to research the topic. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a tool for further research, not a stumbling block to it. Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not necessarily "a tool for further research" (for more details, see WP:RES). Reading articles at Wikipedia may or may not be a steppingstone to looking at other information sources, but that is irrelevant to the issues here. Articles have a subject matter. This article is about Swallow. It's not about ethical reform in Utah. And an article about a living person always has to comply with BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The material at issue complies with the BLP policy. No one has yet put forth any argument that they do not.Buck Russell 72 (talk) 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note I've requested that the page be protected at this time. In any case, Buck Russell 72 (talk · contribs) is just shy of WP:3RR at this point. We don't want him blocked, we want to discuss this issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't seem to be the issue; stubborn reversions during discussion does. Buck is clearly edit-warring, regardless of whether he's breached 3RR. Nonetheless, I'll hold off reporting him for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. This certainly warrants a block, but, as mentioned by FreeRangeFrog, that would preclude discussion. Feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP once the relevant issues have been addressed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the lock. I have no confidence there will be any constructive discussion, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else there is to "discuss" here. No one has yet, to date, made any specific allegation of any potential specific BLP violation. The reverted edits are factual, neutral, supported, and conservative. The resulting interest in Utah ethics reform - which resulted directly from the recent events involving Swallow - clearly are relevant to Swallow's biographical page. Because there are no specific allegations of specific BLP violations, there is nothing else for me to respond to. FreeRangeFrog and Bbb23 obviously have a political agenda here, and know how to use Wikipedia better than I do. So I guess that's it. If the goal here is to hide neutral facts, that goal has been accomplished.--Buck Russell 72 (talk), 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the editors who have contributed to this discussion and/or edited the article know more about Wikipedia than you do. Your comments about "political agenda" and "hid[ing] neutral facts" don't help you. Your stubbornness in reverting while discussion is ongoing does not help you. Although I'm willing to cut you a little slack because your account is new, at some point the exchange becomes repetitious and tedious. You simply don't want to listen to any viewpoint other than your own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm at a loss for how to engage in a useful dialogue with someone who claims that (1) Wikipedia articles should not contain footnotes that would be useful for further research and (2) the current climate for ethics reform in Utah is unrelated to a biographical encyclopedia article about John Swallow. I guess I just don't understand Wikipedia, so I'll stick to the world I do know, which involves writers with real degrees and experience, peer review, and real names of authors so agendas can't be hidden.--Buck Russell 72 (talk), 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, it does violate WP:UNDUE, full stop. The purpose is not to censor information, but to present it in a balanced manner that does not swallow up the rest of the bio, or to serve people's agendas (whatever those might be). You accuse us of being politically biased, which is amusing considering I didn't even know this person existed until the article was brought here for attention, but you have done nothing on Wikipedia other than edit it. At some point you must realize that if you're making an argument about a greater issue (ethics in Utah?) in a bio, you've pretty much gone off topic and into WP:UNDUE territory. What you need to do is go create an article called "Ethics Scandal in Utah" or whatever that is, and hope it sticks around if it stands up to our inclusion guidelines. I hope we've made all this clear. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bruce J. Sallan

This article appears to be an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.189.189 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it, got my BLP shears out and working, would anyone care to check up on the notability of this dear fellow, does he pass GNG? I'm just cutting the article back to the bare essentials. Oh and by the way the whole thing is essentially unreffed. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh and could someone go and template Bruce Sallan (talk · contribs)'s talk page with a COI notice (and maybe a promo one too) as the user is an SPA who created his own bio and added riveting details like he's shy but likes heli-skiing. Don't have the time to root around for it, real life is calling. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done--ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did NOT write my own Wikipedia article originally and I resent the things being said here. I did correct mistakes and update things. If that is not within policy - FINE - take it off, but the slander being written on something that has been up for YEARS is quite offensive. Frankly, I don't give a hoot if you keep me here or not. EVERYTHING about me - including my heli-skiing and love of it - is public record! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.140.16 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Kirk Fogg

This article was a biography of the subject game show host until I WP:BOLDly redirected the article to Legends of the Hidden Temple, the only role for which there was a reliable source documenting his appearance, per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E (construing hosting a single show to "one event"). Since then, there have been several attempts to restart a biography of Mr. Fogg, many of which are lacking in the reliable sources department: [4] (only reliable source is EOTVGS), [5] (just a [malformed] infobox, no sources), [6] (infobox + one paragraph, no sources), [7] (infobox + one paragraph, no sources), [8] (just an infobox, no sources). RJaguar3 | u | t 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Roy DeCarava

Earlier today I blocked an editor for edit warring at Roy DeCarava. That individual has contacted me about the content of the article and informed me about a real-world dispute related to the biography of this individual. This dispute has apparently found its way to Wikipedia. For now I have removed the "Biography" section of the article because it was mostly unreferenced, and I have also fully protected the page. Assistance from editors experienced in handling BLP disputes would be welcome. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Thing is, there is no dispute really, an account with the same family name as the article's subject has continually just blanked the article. Attempts to reach out to them have failed, so I guess block and/or protection are the way to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Although this week's edits only involved the one editor I that blocked today, there are actually two accounts with the same family name as the article's subject, in addition to other editors and IPs, who have been edit warring with each other for over a year. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article on a neologism does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEOLOGISM for secondary sources reporting on the usage of the term, relying instead on citations merely to uses of the term in primary sources. It also seems to be a coatrack for problematic reporting about the usage of this term and other related terms with respect to living people, again from primary sources which is not permitted by WP:BLP. Very similar to the Very Serious People article listed above which is well on its way to deletion for not meeting WP:NEOLOGISM. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

35 google scholar results [9]. You're not even trying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess you'd better make sure the article is based on the appropriate scholarly sources. Chunks of it relating to living people will still need to be removed by editors who actually understand BLP and PRIMARY, which does not appear to include you. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources are out there, though they are obscured by the conservative rush to tag various people with it or to otherwise claim that Krauthammer was right. Notability of this epithet is certainly beyond question. Bias of the article is of course another question. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see the "Spinoff" section get purged, that was a pile of piling-on, but I think the "Usage" section could be axed entirely as well. It is well enough to describe the term, where it came from, etc...but we don't need to list every right-wing talking head who has said it. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted Yworo's edits to this article, then removed some of the Usages and Spinoffs. I also changed the titles of those sections to Examples and Derivatives. For background, read the last few sections of the talk page (soon to be in archive 1, if I set up automatic archiving correctly).

I do not see how Yworo's edits have anything to do with BLP. Neither do I see anything in this discussion about BLP. Unless someone can demonstrate some connection with BLP rules, any further discussion should be at Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome#March 2013, where I have explained my edits. Cheers, CWC 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Any instances which apply a term to a living person and are based on a primary report, such as a blog or an op ed, violate WP:BLP, which doesn't allow sourcing for such name-calling from primary sources. Anything sourced from a secondary source (again, not a blog or another op ed) neutrally reporting the incident, is okay. I don't believe many of the sources fall into this second category. Yworo (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give this one more benefit of the doubt than Very Serious People for a simple reason: I've heard of it, and I know that it's legitimately in widespread use, which Very Serious People isn't. Neologism says that a neologism "has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"; I would argue that a term that is in widespread enough therefore has ceased to be a neologism.

Consider phrases like "pro-life movement" or "pro-choice movement". We have pages for both of those under those names (with "United States" added). If you go to those pages, they are about the movements that the terms refer to. They're not mainly about the terms, nor are most of the sources about the terms; there is a small section about the terms but that is clearly not the main thrust of the articles.

Yet those terms are something that someone made up one day, just like Bush Derangement Syndrome. They're not, however, neologisms, because they're too commonly used. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ronnie Screwvala

• Ronnie Screwvala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography with a history of puffery. I cleaned it out in mid-February, but the fluff has since returned like lint to my corduroys. If anyone else wants to have a shot at it please do. This sort of month-in-month-out maintenance requirement seems inane, though--can an article be protected to prevent slow moving but persistent edits of this sort? Most of this appears to be courtesy of Yogeshdube (talk · contribs), who has an impressive history of promotional intent. 99.137.209.135 (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

depuffed - though there is not a single negative comment at all in the BLP even so. Collect (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you had to return after an IP puffed it up yet again. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Berlusconi_convicted

Please see this edit diff used out of context to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated criminal allegations as if they were fact. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Luckett

• Bill Luckett (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In November 2012, the page for Bill Luckett was edited to include a claim that he was involved with GLAAD, the gay rights group. Bill has no documented association with GLAAD. The context this edit was made within was that he announced he would be running for Mayor of his hometown, Clarksdale, MS, that same month. There is another candidate, Marco McMillian, who is openly gay. Together, Luckett, McMillian, and a third candidate were the three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.

This undocumented insertion of GLAAD is clearly the laying of groundwork for a strategy to use homosexuality as an issue in the campaign which is occurring in a deep South town in the Mississippi Delta, an area where this kind of tactic would resonate. No matter what Luckett's personal feelings on gay rights, this undocumented assertion has no place in a wikipedia page. This article should be locked immediately and remain so until at least after the election in June 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.234.24 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns - I have removed lots of unreferenced, or poorly referenced, material, including self-published; I have also tagged the article for improvement. GiantSnowman 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Brian David Mitchell

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

The editor who created and extensively edits the Brian David Mitchell BLP and related articles to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping article insists on including an extensive quotation which he has transcribed and edited from a local TV news video of a witness in a criminal trial commenting on and summarizing his own testimony on the courthouse steps.

I have removed it on the basis (i) a raw video is a primary source, which is not to be used in a BLP per WP:BLPPRIMARY; (ii) the transcription and editing of a portion of the video by the editor (apart from being inaccurate) constitutes original research, which is not to be used in a BLP; (iii) the lengthy quotation is repetitive of material already extensively treated in the article, as the actual testimony of that witness and other witnesses as reported by secondary sources is reflected at length, lending undue weight to the material sought to be included and (iv) lengthy quotations are generally to be avoided in any article.

The editor is essentially a SPS, (something like 3/4 of all his/her edits are to this BLP and closely-related articles and their talk pages) and repeatedly re-inserted the deleted material without discussion. Although s/he has finally staked out a position on the talk page, Talk:Brian_David_Mitchell#Reinsertion_of_transcription_of_interview that talk page gets virtually no page-views or participation, so I am posting this notice here to get uninvolved editor opinion and input. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I agree that the edit was contentious at best and the source was completely inappropriate and bordering on WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Skin (2004). Mr. Skin's Skincyclopedia. St. Martin's Griffin. p. 168. ISBN 0-312-33144-4.

This article cites age of living person which is incorrect. I should know, I am her MOTHER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petangel88 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify which person? If you let us know, we can correct the article immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Krista Errickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL This article? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0259799/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 Has the same birthdate. They may have it wrong so it may be a matter of finding a more reliable source to verify. The book may have erred or IMBD may have, and one sourced the other.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find her in any of the biographical databases I regularly use. Unless someone pulls a date out of an interview somewhere, we may be forced to debate the reliability of these two sources. Since it's been challenged, maybe we should just take it out. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it for now. I have found two articles that move it back to 1962 going by 18yo in 1980 article and 16yo in 1978 article. I am avoiding birthdate dramas so feel free to edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither 'Mr. Skin' nor IMDB are reliable, so the birthdate can go. But the article has far broader issues re: unsourced content, not the least of which is a section of unreferenced and redlinked awards. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As for age confusion, well, that's not new, and has apparently been fostered by the subject [10]. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Mr. Skin would be considered an unreliable source. The subject matter it deals in may be considered a bit tawdry, but it has a research staff and isn't user editable. It shows a birthdate at http://www.-----.com/krista-errickson-nude-c3063.html that aligns with what was claimed to be in the older paper edition. Someone has included it in the spam filter, so I had to redact the site name in the link.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A person with the same name as the subject wrote wrote the IMBD bio. So the subject themselves may be trying to become 2 years younger. Should we include both years or none?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tawdriness of the subject aside, I found the prose so awful that it called into question its reliability as an encyclopedic source, much the same way certain mass market tabloids are scrutinized when referenced in articles. I can't speak to the quality of its research staff, so that may be a valid point. But again, I think the age business is the least of the article's problems. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem removing it on the basis of conflicting data. I just don't think Mr. Skin should be considered inherently unreliable. I note that the IMDB biography tries to claim her career ended in 1992, skipping two years of trashy movies. I think we have a case of someone editing the past to her own benefit.—Kww(talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that wouldn't be a first here. I haven't done a search yet, but can we establish the claims in the awards section, and then whether the honors are considered notable? The redlinks don't bode well. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Brazenly baring her boobies" doesn't inspire confidence in the source. My take is that 'Mr. Skin' might be reliable for its professed single (er, double) focus, but not so much for overall biographical content. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See also User:Kerrickson contribs. They seem COI to me. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard would be the place to discuss the skin source but since it is blacklisted I don't think we can use it anyways.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch re: Kerrickson (talk · contribs). Claims like being Kazan's goddaugther don't belong in the article without a source, and much of the meat of the bio is unreferenced, and appears to have been added by the COI account. I've added a COI template to the article. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why this book would not be a reliable source. The site, yes, but not the book. Semantics about "brazenly baring...." have nothing to do with the reliability. Being funny or titillating in the prose doesn't make it unreliable. I recall a birthday dispute involving the LA Times saying one thing and a large Australian paper saying another. One was obviously wrong. Should they be decalred "unreliable" because of a minor biographical error? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. My point is that its usefulness as a source is limited by its context. A book devoted primarily to alcoholism in circus acrobats would be useful for just that topic, but perhaps not for broader application. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the book to check page 168? An editor could easily BS the page number as they couldn't link online because of the blacklist. I myself would only accept a scan or two of the page in question. Two more reliable sources have her circa 1962.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's actually referenced to Google Books before you removed it. It checks out.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the main libraries in Alberta have it. Search: http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/ I could try the rest of Canada and see if I can have a copy brought in. This alone seems to make me think it isn't RS enough for a BLP article. If someone can get a copy and look at page 168 then that may help. The online website that is blacklisted may have been corrupted and not match the book. The reliable sources noticebaord may have advice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Praveen Sharma

• Praveen Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praveen Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This living person's biography has been relisted thrice at AfD. Any comments would be most welcome. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Roy Maloy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This article does not meet the standard of "Biography of a Living Person."

The material is not verifiable due to the absence of sources for most inclusions. Where references are included that are misrepresented, misquoted, extrapolated or falsified.

Material that has previously been removed for not being verified has been returned at later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Even a deletionist going through WP:BEFORE is going to find enough sources in Australian press to give pause, if not abandon the idea of a deletion nomination. See these:

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

I think, even discounting the announcement-type coverage that has no reporting after an event actually occurred, if it ever did, coverage by ABC (numerous!), China Post, Brisbane Times, and other local and smaller outlets ([11], [12]) are sufficient to result in a keep at AfD.

You might remove whatever isn't nailed down, but actual notability is probably met. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Matt Fiddes

• Matt Fiddes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wihtin this BLP I have tried to make a number of edits as there are a number of references that are not relevant to the edits made. There are still many that remain within the article that I have. I added a comment about a fine from a fake court summons (could be seen as trivial) which was properly sourced. However, it has been removed twice. I feel that evidence suggest on number of edits on this page it is the subject and he or someone linked to him is editing any negative comments from the article. It seems to be self promotion to me. Thoughts? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

I see some puffery there and the article is a bit long for it so yes, there's some stuff that could be pruned. But your edits don't seem to make a lot of sense. Can you be specific as to what you wanted to remove and/or accomplish? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the bit about the court fine in the personal section. Some may see it as only notable locally and undue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I added a negative edit on to the page and it was removed which I am guessing was by him or someone else associated with him. I then added it again and was removed.I suppose I want to highlight that the sign of a negative story it is removed and there are certain parts of the article that is certainly puffed up. It seems to be a promotional page more than a biography and I wondered if there was anything that could be done? (Edinburgh loon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

Johan Bäckman

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

To say this person would be "highly controversial dissident" is not objective.

As mentioned in latest edit, he is considered as "dissident" in Finland, but in Russia he is awarded human rights activist, and in Estonia - persona non grata. So he has many faces in different countries. Also this article is well too mixed collection of alleged interpretations of his statements about various affairs. Many commentaries go too deep in details. It is very obvious what are his main points --Agerotops (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I am having a hard time determining whether the sources used there are reliable, as we require for any contentious claims. Also, the article seems poorly worded, but that's an aesthetic issue. I see a bit of weasely wording as well, but nothing I'd have a heart attack over. Are there any particular issues you have problems with? It would help if you point them out and we run through them in order. My Finnish and Russian (not to mention my Estonian) are very rusty. Which is to say they are non-existent. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Umayya Abu-Hanna‎

• Umayya Abu-Hanna‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Umayya Abu-Hanna‎ has suffered from biased editing in both directions - both pro and anti the person (see the article's editing history). At the moment it suffers from some BLP problems, some of them rather blatant in my opinion. However, I don't want to risk falling foul of 3RR and would very much appreciate more eyes looking at the article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed most of the negativity and left a comment in the talk page with instructions on how to add it back as per our policies. All of that was horribly worded and obviously a coat rack for someone with an agenda. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Roy Maloy

• DeleteThis article provides no proof of Roy Maloy's stilt working records or his earlier history. It is also linked to a website that makes false claims of the individuals status within the entertainment industry. This is article is written by Roy Maloy in an attempt to gain notoriety and fame, this article is misleading.