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.

Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

The section is purely an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

Bon Jovi

There are multiple secondary sources that report Richie Sambora's departure from the band, yet the talk page disregards all of the reliable sources I provided as "feeding on rumors". If Sambora is no longer a current member, it is wrong of Wikipedia to list him as a current member. The reverts also disposed of a valid source, and were mostly performed by PanosBonJovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edit summaries and username suggest a strong COI. I told them on the talk page that BLP violations are a notable exception for the 3RR rule, but all I got in return was this "friendly threat" by Jauerback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its almost never a BLP violation to remove potentially unsafe info about a BLP subject from their article. Even if it turns out later to be true. I would want a lot better sources than the South African Times and US Magazine. First the SA Times article is actually referencing a Daily Mail interview/entertainment piece from MAY which was talking about his absence from the European tour. It says nothing about leaving the band for good. It actually references he has taken a break before. Secondly US Magazine's piece is ultimately sourced to 'Rumorfix' and an un-named source. With no comment from Richie or the band. None of the above are reliable sources for potentially controversial info in a BLP. So it stays out until a reliable source comments. Jaeurback is incorrect on one thing however, we do not need to wait to hear from Richie or the band to include it in the article, only reliable secondary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right. Technically, we don't need an official statement from the band or him and secondary sources will be enough. However, those secondary sources have to be more than rumors and I don't see how those secondary sources will be accurate/reliable without any statement from either the band or Sambora. For the record, I personally don't care if he's left the band or not, but removing him based on unreliable, anonymous reports is not reason enough to do it. In fact, as Only in death does duty end pointed out, it's actually more of a BLP violation to remove him from the band, especially using sources that claim he was fired, whether it be for alcohol related issues for for money. At this point, it's better to err on side that he's still a member and keeping him listed as such until there are more than rumors. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Threat? How is that a threat, friendly or unfriendly? You already broke WP:3RR, so you were well on your way to being blocked if you continued reverting. I think it was quite obvious that I was not threatening to block you. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The article should be reverted back to an earlier state, since it's not clear what the situation is at the moment. Richie Sambora is still a member of the band until an official statement is issued. And neither Phil X nor Hugh McDonald are members of the band, it's clearly an error to be fixed. They just tour or tour and record with the band. Neither is an official member. There is no confirmed quote anywhere to say Richie Sambora has quit the band. And if he isn't, saying he was fired could potentially be a BLP violation. Iceman (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My last revert has stood for a couple of days with Sambora still being listed as a member of the band - unless I'm missing something. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The NY Daily News says: Sambora, 54, has been with band for 30 years, since singer Jon Bon Jovi formed the group in 1983. A source familiar with Bon Jovi did tell the Daily News' Confidenti@l that reports of a split are incorrect and at best premature. [1] I've seen other news reports that use the word "allegedly". So it seems things are still in flux and since WP is not a newspaper, its prudent to wait and include it only when a clear conclusion is reported by the press.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheryl B. Schrader

There is a content dispute-- see Talk:Cheryl B. Schrader. One user who feels strongly that the offending section should be removed PRODed. I dePRODed, and removed further content. I'm OK with removing the whole section. Of course, some editors there want to include all the gory details. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Discussing there. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've also commented and its on my watchlist now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Asaram Bapu 2013 rape case

Hello. The criminal case against Asaram Bapu for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old girl is being suppressed on the Wikipedia.[2] Is this fair? Just because he wears a religious turban does not make him immune from legal action and questioning. Compare Luka Magnotta (Eric Clinton Kirk Newman). He too is accused of a crime but the information about him is not suppressed because he is not a powerful man. Asaram Bapu's devotees and their sympathizers wish this heinous crime (or the allegations thereof) not to be shown on the Wikipedia. I don't understand why. At this point, I must point out that Asaram Bapu has not even been questioned by the police even once, because once he was "meditating deeply", or "had other commitments" and more recently, "has a dead relative". Is the Wikipedia going to behave just like the local police in India is? The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee- among other big shot politicians- is ("allegedly") a friend if not devotee of Asaram Bapu. There is a lot of outrage over the condition of women in India and the media has been reporting every single rape in the country but in the case of Asaram, but they have invented the expression "sexual assault" solely to describe the alleged rape by Asaram Bapu. The term "sexual assault" does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and Asaram has been charged under IPC Section 376 (rape). It is not the first time that this person has been charged with a grave crime (like murder). I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia did not suppress this important criminal case because of this man's being powerful. Please remove the protection on the page or at least restore the previous version. I do not see how the following criteria for BLP are being violated: verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire article consists of two sections: personal life and controversies. The talk page has a rather long discussion underway with several experienced editors participating. Others may join the discussion. Creme may like to read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to better understand WP's processes and guidelines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping editors from showering high praise on this man. The reason why that page is full of criticism is because there is no publicly available RS that sings an eulogy to him. He has now been arrested and yet Wikipedia does not even have a word about the criminal case against him for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old.--70.76.85.36 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant and worthy of attention that someone has been removing my list of reliably sourced quotes about the legal controversy from the talk page. My sense is that the discussion there is being hampered on all sides by rather absurd partisanship, and more NPOV eyeballs on the case are warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this case, Mr Wales. I am not sure if you are aware of the nature of this controversy. The person in question is an immensely powerful man with hundreds of thousands of followers and 400 ashrams across the world. As a matter of fact, the President of India Pranab Mukherjee- whether a devotee or not- has endorsed his books with reviews. So, it is not unreasonable to expect people here to be opposed to the addition of any unflattering but well-referenced material.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to know if it is okay to add that Asaram Bapu allegedly started his life as a bootlegger since it has been published in a major English newspaper in India. IPS stands for Indian Police Service.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and now asking for consensus before adding this material.[3] What is wrong with adding this? --Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Daniel Plaza

Daniel Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd like a second opinion before reverting again. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think its a notable part of his sport history and should be in the article. But only one or two sentences. The prior version gave undue weight. My suggested text would be:

In 1996 Plaza tested positive for steroids after a 1996 championship competition in Spain. He tested negative in subsequent tests and the Spanish Supreme Court overturned his 2 year ban from competition several years later. (using the BBC and Telegraph as citations)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see what the IP makes of that. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Patton Oswalt

Would like other opinions if this is appropriately written and sourced. Discussion is here. Note: other editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Has engaged in racism publicly" is the best sentence to write there. It's only one article that accuses racism - the second source doesn't. It also doesn't seem like this was a big deal, so it should just be dropped from the article, in my opinion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the text and the sources should be dropped. The entertainment articles cited refer to a Twitter dispute between a comedian an a Salon mag reporter and do not constitution 'public racism' nor do they, IMO give notability to the so called issue in any significant way.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Victor Salva

At Victor Salva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an IP insists we should include the fact that the subject has been convicted of a crime in the lede, which is indeed a fact and properly referenced later in the article. The subject's legal problems are independent of his other achievements and basic claims to notability (film director). I feel this is inappropriate, but that's my personal opinion. It certainly isn't a violation of anything in WP:BLP, except perhaps undue weight. I put this to other editors to see if we can reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP is beyond 3RR at this point, btw.Echoedmyron (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked (I was about to do it but someone jumped in first). Daniel (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That the article is illustrated by a mugshot compounds the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, IP isn't blocked; maybe you saw the old block from July? Now at 5 reverts of same disputed content.Echoedmyron (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to put it in the lead. For such a short article, the lead should be one or two sentences. I've also done some clean up editing there for NPOV and it's on my watchlist now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, I think we are in agreement here. The IP seems angry at the whole thing, but that's to be expected. Hopefully they'll stop trying to make their point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User Anomazee and Michael Harner

User:Anomazee (single purpose account) appears to be a bit too excited about the article Michael Harner. He is blanking every comment he doesn't like from the talkpage. Well, actually some of the blanked comments were not related to article or they were unsubstantiated opinions about a living person, but other comments were just normal comments about the way the article is written (example). Due the rewritings by Anomazee, at the moment the article appears to be a little biased (hagiography-like) but nobody is allowed to remark it. Since he threatened to have me blocked for defamatory edits in that page and, moreover, since I'm not involved at all in the development of that article (my bot just fixed a link few days ago) I would like to ask you to take a look at that article and then do what you consider is appropriate. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your bot's addition to the article on Dr. Harner was removed as it violated Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. Anomazee (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Basilicofresco. The edit at issue was not made by that user or that user's bot. I misread the page history. Anomazee (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is BLP getting used as a cover to write a hagiography and whitewash. I'm working at untangling it now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Any assistance at achieving a NPOV would be appreciated. I know the article needs work. My previous edits were not intended to whitewash but to remove poorly sourced or malicious previous edits. Anomazee (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Inio Asano

Manga artist Inio Asano apparently came out as male-to-female transsexual in an interview with BREAK MAX magazine. An anonymous IP user keeps reverting the usage of feminine pronouns that MOS:IDENTITY indicates should be used, and in an edit summary claimed that it was a "gross misunderstanding" of Asano's statements, but has refused to elaborate. Nongendered (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an editor who is fluent in Japanese who can chime in? The arguments made by the IP about self-identity gave me pause. We need to make sure we're not screwing this up. Also, funny how the masses are not descending on this one like they did with Chelsea Manning. Sigh. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I know Japanese, but my reading speed is abysmally slow. Still, if somebody can provide the original interview I can confirm what it actually says. Nongendered (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nongendered: The source given is this. We also need to determine if it is a reliable source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the source, but it doesn't contain the actual text of the article, which is the problem. Nongendered (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

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

I'm following up from my review of a request at COIN. The Matthew Bryden controversy section is written in a way that is biased with potentially harmful original research (among other postings, "involve himself and the UN in unlawful actions."). Please consider deleting the Matthew Bryden controversy section until someone can recreate it in a more neutral way.-- Jreferee (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lists of "Rampage killers"

If you manage to wade through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.

WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.

It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment... I've asked Delicious carbuncle to tag or remove the BLP violations but, as yet, there's been no activity. Perhaps someone can convince this editor to do something about the problem, rather than just forum shop at Jimbo's talkpage, or AFD, or here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not much point in removing them if the main editor of these lists is adamant about putting them back and/or adding more in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bad faith accusation. Looks like you're trying to collect 'em all... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only go by what Lord Gøn says, but I didn't start this discussion so that you could continue being a WP:DICK, I started it to get other opinions about the specific question that has been raised. You know where my talk page is if you aren't going to comment on that topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by now it's clear you have some kind of DICK obsession, I'm not interested in that. You have identified an article with one, two (how many?) BLP violations, but instead of fixing the violations, you've run to Jimbo, run to AFD, run to this noticeboard to get someone else to do the work. Good effort! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.

2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken, I twice explained to you that you are discussing a completely different scenario (here & here). Perhaps someone else can try to explain the difference between what you are describing and simply having no information other than someone was arrested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you are referring me here to continue our discussion, here I am. Though I really don't know in how many different places this discussion has to be started, because imho one would've been sufficient, and that is Talk:List of rampage killers.

Anyway, you are selectively quoting BLPCRIME, and I ask you to read it again, in its entirety, including the footnotes, because after your quote above it continues to say that we should seriously consider not to include material suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. That does not mean "never do that", but "consider if it is necessary and well sourced". Please take notice of footnote 6, which states, quote: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." And then take a look at WP:WIALPI what constitutes as a low profile individual, quote: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Now you tell me that someone running into a mall, shooting a dozen people is not actively seeking media attention. As the Westroads mall shooter wrote regarding his upcoming shooting spree: "I'm gonna be fuckin famous." Anybody going on a rampage is doing so either with the clear intention to, or at least with the knowledge that he will become the focus of media attention, and therefore BLPCRIME does not apply and your argument falls flat. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

First off, the discussion is here because so that editors other than you and I will weigh in. Secondly, you are misreading why WP:BLPCRIME exists in the first place. It suggests that if someone has a WP biography but is not a widely-known figure, don't include accusations of crimes in their biography. Thirdly, you cannot assume the intentions of the alleged perpetrators. In the case you cite, we can rely on his words, but it is not reasonable to assume that this is true of all cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, there are no restrictions for other editors to post at the talk-page of list of rampage killers, or the AfD, so anyone wanting to weigh in and state his, or her opinion could as well do it there, too.

And no, I am not misreading BLPCRIME, you are. BLP applies to any person still alive, not only to those who have a WP article. Any living person mentioned in an article is subject to BLP, no matter if he/she is notable enough for an entire article. But any person that is actually notable enough for his/her own article, is probably high-profile enough to not be subject to BLPCRIME, because it is very specific in that it does only apply to low profile persons.

The victim of a mass shooting, for example, would be a low profile individual, because it did not actively seek out media attention, but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to add that said victim had defrauded 100,000 dollars from his employer, that would be covered by BLPCRIME, and should be removed, if it is unsourced, or irrelevant in the context the person is presented.

But the shooter himself? No, never. There's probably no more drastic way of attention seeking than to shoot up a public place, so the act alone is enough that the perpetrators cease to be low profile. But if you want to say that we don't know if they did it, as long as they have merely been arrested, then you have severe misconceptions of how a rampage killing is generally executed. These are not crimes where the perpetrator walks in, does his deed and then escapes, with the police arriving some time afterwards, doing its investigation and then arresting a suspect days, weeks, or maybe months later due to circumstancial evidence. No, what they do is walking in, attacking people until they are either overwhelmed by their victims, or until police arrives, whereupon they either commit suicide, get shot by police, or are arrested. It rarely even happens that one of them flees his killing grounds, they just stay there, and kill, until they are stopped, so there's almost never any question who did it, and in those very few cases where it is so, I refrain from adding the perpetrator's name, or the entire cases, e.g. the Glynn County Mass Murder. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Adding an unconvicted living person a list of rampage killers because you 'know they did it' is a violation of WP:BLP policy, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What if the sources clearly state he did it, with no ambiguity whatsoever? Ain't Wikipedia about verifyability, not truth? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If what you say about these kinds of crimes is true, and I believe it is, then there will be very few cases where this issue comes up. If they have committed suicide or have been killed, then it isn't a BLP issue, since they are no longer a living person. If they have only been arrested, then you cannot add them to a list of "killers" (or "attackers" if the list criteria get changed). There would be more leeway in a full article where you could discuss what has been reported by credible sources, but there's no way you can put someone's name in a list of killers without the reader drawing the conclusion that they are a killer. And, despite your opinions, we wait until the courts have decided if they are killers or not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree on that matter forever. You say, naming the arrested person can never be done, I say common sense demands to state the obvious, and not naming someone like Anders Breivik as the perpetrator, with or without conviction, will make us look like complete buffoons. As I have previously stated there have been edit wars about naming Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes in the list, and they were eventually settled by adding that they were suspects. Anyway, no matter if we name the arrested person or not, any reported rampage killing that corresponds to the list's terms of inclusion should be added, and then we have to write something into the perpetrator-cell. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If you write the name of an unconvicted person into a column marked 'perpetrator', you violate WP:BLP policy. If you violate WP:BLP policy you are liable to be blocked from editing, regardless of whether you disagree with the policy or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that you see it that way, you've said so several times. I know that others see it the way I do. Also this is not a matter of disagreeing with the policy, just with the interpretation of what it actually says. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is entirely clear regarding such matters - there is no room for 'interpretation': "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• DC asked for new opinions. I'll be one. It looks like the AFD is quite clear, the list/article is needed, if possibly under a different name. I agree with DC's point that we need to be quite certain that anyone we call a rampage killer is one, this is a very highly derogatory claim; if there is any reasonable chance that someone isn't one, they should not be in this list. But I also agree with Ken's point that this does not mean they have to have been convicted of murder; one obvious example besides the one he mentioned is that many of these folks died at the end of their rampage, and the state didn't go through the bother of trying their corpse. So we need to go case by case. If there is any case that is still in doubt, it should not be on this list.--GRuban (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, thanks. It seems pretty obvious to me that any BLP violation should be removed. It didn't need an AFD for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• From the discussion here, it sounds like the guidelines would be something like:
  • If a suspect has been arrested, but not convicted, we can't list them there. There's no deadline, we can wait until they are convicted or plead guilty. We wouldn't want to be complicit in a case like Richard Jewell, and that's exactly why we have BLP. Yes, that may mean some dead obvious listings will be delayed for a bit, but that's not the end of the world. If the event is in itself notable, we can have an article on it, explaining the situation in enough detail to satisfy BLP.
  • If a suspect has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, but it's beyond doubt that they were the killer, I think inclusion would generally be appropriate.
  • If the killer committed suicide or was killed during the attack, and it was certain that they were the attacker, inclusion is acceptable.
  • Obviously, those convicted of such an attack may be included.
• Anyone else's thoughts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur with Seraphimblade's assessment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this contradicts itself--the first says they must be convicted but the second lays out cases (incompetence, not guilty by reason of insanity) where they don't need to be convicted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "not guilty by reason of insanity" a court finding? And in the case of incompetence to stand trial there never can be a court finding, although the facts may be clear. On the whole, I think Seraphimblade's criteria make sense. If editors want, I could create an WP:Editnotice for the articles concerned, laying out the inclusion criteria. This would show up whenever anyone clicks one of the Edit tabs. Andreas JN466 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the list is labelled 'killers'. And before anyone asks, you can't Wikilawyer around inclusion by saying that 'the list only states that they are accused'. If they haven't been convicted, they don't meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the first place. If the criteria includes 'alleged killers', the list title would have to be 'List of alleged rampage killers' - which would still violate WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So the article on the Aurora shootings uses "alleged" many times, any reason why this shouldn't apply to the list? After all, the article is called "2012 Aurora shooting" and if there's an implication that someone did it (i.e. did the "shooting"), as described therein, there's no difference, right? In fact, this "alleged" killer has his own article. So, once again, why would we remove him from the list if it was adequately noted that he's still only accused? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable and likely that a reader will assume that anyone in a list called "List of rampage killers" is a rampage killer. That is not true of the article about the event. We also treat things in list articles differently from articles devoted to a particular subject. This seems a good time to point out that renaming the list to something like "List of alleged rampage killers" is a non-starter. Media reports may identify people as the "alleged" or "suspected" perpetrator, but going from that to "rampage killer" becomes an exercise in original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, eventually you are mentioning the one point that actually may apply, and if I were you, I would've constructed my entire argumentation around it. Yes, it is true that BLP demands to treat lists differently and to not add any information that may suggest a person has committed a crime, but I have addressed this part in a previous comment already, and still think, that if there is no reasonable chance that the arrested was not the actual offender, which is the case in most rampage killings, then the rule should be ignored, because it is an immoderate impediment to the addition of relevant information.

You probably see this issue entirely from the point of rigidly enforcing Wiki policies, whereas I see it from a more scientific point of view, asking myself, what kind of information would I want to have present in such a list, so it helps me to find more on the subject. And the name of the arrested is doubtlessly of great value in this regard, so to me this is an obvious case of WP:IAR.

Also, there are apparently people who agree with my pov, because, as I said, there have been edit wars about the removal of names on grounds of BLP, and their eventual settlement was to add "suspect" either after the perps name, or in the additional notes, so it's not as if there wasn't some sort of community consensus already how to handle this. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Please read and absorb what people here have said. This isn't a case where "ignore all rules" is going to work for you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read what the others have to say about it, and if the community comes to a different conclusion than I do, so be it. I simply wanted to say that it may be detrimental to the providing of useful information. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Since I'm already in complete agreement with Seraphimblade's assessment and criteria, thereby considering this discussion done, I just want to say I have a problem with the word "killer" being used when we're then using criteria from the judicial system, which btw "killing" is not a crime. Murder and manslaughter are crimes, requiring more to the facts than just someone "killed" someone, you have to reach certain criteria to be indicted, even before you ever have the chance to be convicted. You can kill in self-defense, and never be brought to trial but technically you ARE a killer. You can kill a deer, you're a killer, but did you commit a crime? (depends on the season I suppose). I guess it's part of the reason I get upset when someone says "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder" (there's a difference and only one is found in the Bible).

As a further aside "innocent till proven guilty" technically doesn't occur under the US Constitution, it's one of those "exists in the penumbra" rights, drawn forth from the 5, 6, and 14th amendments and the common law heritage of the US; though as a signer of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the US is bound by its statement of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" which per the US Constitution all treaties have full force as the "supreme law of the land" as if they were a part of the US Constitution, regardless of any conflict with state or federal law or even the Constitution itself.Camelbinky (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The US constitution is a red herring: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" is WP:BLP policy. And no, you can't Wikilawyer round it by claiming that calling someone a 'rampage killer' isn't an assertion that they have murdered. It clearly is. Anyway, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, and it is entirely clear that inclusion of an unconvicted living individual in a 'list of killers' is a gross violation of policy, regardless of attempts to suggest otherwise. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not be too categorical, and take it case by case. In general I agree with you, but being categorical that way leads to, for example, needing to delete most of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list as evading arrest is a crime, and yet many of them have not actually been convicted of evading arrest... There will be cases, as discussed above, when people who have not been convicted for various reasons will still be fine on that list. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bit apples to oranges. If we say someone's on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and they in fact are, that's a simple factual statement. It's not saying they're guilty of a crime, it's saying they're wanted by the FBI and on the Most Wanted list, and they verifiably are. On the other hand, saying someone is a "rampage killer", when they are only accused of a rampage killing, is not a correct statement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that the editor(s) who are proposing to insert/have inserted the words "alleged" and "allegedly" have done so because they are being legalistic and exercising what they see as an abundance of caution, since the sole suspect (now deceased) has never and will never be tried for and/or convicted of the crime. I do not think that the inclusion of these qualifiers impunes the integrity of the victim (and only remaining witness to the events), and so I do not think they violate guidelines for WP:BLP. There has been much debate in Talk about whether these qualifiers are necessary or even appropriate given the facts of the case. I think they are not, but I don't see their insertion as a BLP issue. If someone tried to explicitly introduce the theory (which exists, in some limited circles) in the article that the victim is lying and that no kidnapping took place, I would oppose it since many authorities have concluded and stated to media that that one did (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE). That is not the case here. Dwpaul (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the victim was "allegedly" abducted implies she may have been a willing accomplice. There is no credible claim to that effect in reliable sources. The investigators categorically repudiate the idea. Including "alleged" just gives credence to wild unfounded speculation that arose between the first sighting of the abducted girl and the shooting of the abductor, and adds to her victimisation. I have removed it from the article, and I'd appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on the article and issue appropriate warnings if yesterday's edit war starts up again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• And he is now changing the infobox to say the guy was the "suspected perpetrator" instead of just "perpetrator". [4] Is it a BLP violation to report what the police report says? Do they need to go to trail to prove he was responsible for the double murder and the kidnapping? Dream Focus 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• "He" is me; I am not the person responsible for the original edits that prompted your BLP submission; I've been the one walking the middle ground. And yes, he is the suspected perpetrator. And yes, they would need to go to trial to "prove" that he is responsible for the murder, fire and kidnapping, but that will not happen, since he is dead. So he will remain the suspected perpetrator, with strong circumstantial evidence to support the suspicion but without a finding (unless and until there is an inquest, which is relatively uncommon here in the US, and which officials may not initiate since there are no other suspects). Let the reader draw their own conclusions; we don't need to alter the known facts to force an outcome. Dwpaul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And the term "suspected perpetrator" doesn't imply any doubt that a crime occurred, only that the criminality of the suspect is unproven (a fact in this case). This is no longer a discussion of a potential BLP violation, since nothing about the current article has the prior effect. Dwpaul (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit like what DiMaggio's sister is doing at the moment, attempting to soften up the image of of her brother and lay some culpability onto the kidnap victim. I'm not surprised at all to see this creep into the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the editors who prompted this discussion by inserting "allegedly" before "kidnapped" cited comments by the sister as basis, which prompted me to point out to that editor that the family of the (now dead) suspect doesn't get to dictate the terms used to describe him. However, I don't see that "suspected perpetrator" is image softening, or has the effect of blaming the victim, it's simply the fact of the matter at this point in time. Dwpaul (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson&oldid=571664371&diff=prev and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

Helmuth Nyborg is a Danish scientist whose work has rightfully, in my view, received much criticism. That said, his biography is poorly written and riddled with dead links. I removed a statement accusing him of racism, more or less, and the statement was immediately returned, with a broken link used to source the statement. I'm not asking that this biography be favorable, but that it be rigorously sourced and well written in the manner deserving of an article for a living person. -Darouet (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I also see that a section titled "links to extreme right wing organizations" and linking Nyborg with holocaust deniers is based on two references, both of which lead to dead links. I'm not sure if they would have been reliable sources anyway. -Darouet (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

All this material has again been restored, much of it using references that are dead links. -Darouet (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

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

This BLP article has a long history of poorly sourced and potentially libellous edits by anonymous users.

On Sep 1, user Dzgoldman/110.77.193.113 inserted a new section headed 'Criticisms by memory and math tricks experts'. User's sole reliable published source is a chapter of the book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by freelance reporter Joshua Foer. Foer's minority perspective (unsupported by any scientist in the fields of autism/synesthesia/savantism) has long been debated on the article's talk page and previous discussions with editors including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (who is one of the researchers who has studied the subject) reached a consensus that Foer's speculation should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article.

BLP rules require multiple, reliable third-party published sources to confirm the notability of any specific claim. The talk page has made this clear on multiple occasions, but has been ignored. The user has advanced no other reliable third-party published sources in support of the above edits, which I have therefore removed.

The above user/s had also inserted a link to a blog by a 'mental math expert' which is critical of the subject. I have removed it as not meeting Wiki's BLP article rules.

Please could an editor review and comment here and/or on the article's talk page?

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This rule would also seem relevant here:

"Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I agree that the criticism from blogs, such as it is, is far too thin and unverifiable for inclusion in an encyclopedic biography. The existing paragraph is a good, neutral and properly-weighted accounting of what is out there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken Wallis

The entry notes his death 1st September 2013 but I can find no supporting evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.158.82 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. I also emailed his website and explained that we need an obit cited.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Sourced now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I being anal?

I cropped File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger.jpg over at commons because the gap at the top of the image made the subject look short. This caused a minor edit war over there that ended with File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger Infobox.jpg as an alt version. It was added to Canadian federal election, 2011 as well as other articles. Which version would show the subject in the best light? I still think the full size makes him look short. Try comparing both historical versions of the article. A browser refresh is needed if any distortion is caused. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The squarer crop is the better image; bigger subject, less dead space, and with eyes on a class "thirds" line. The "too short" argument is ridiculous. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the original (or the other crop) that makes him look short. No opinion on which is the better image to use. --Onorem (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the crop without the wasted space at the top is better, but ... yes, you are being anal. Neither one is a BLP violation. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize it isn't a violation but I have done many similar crops at commons and this is the first one I have had issues with. When images are used in many articles it is easiest to overwrite the main one and let others decide on whether to fork off the gappy ones. File:Severn Cullis-Suzuki.jpg is another one that I just did. She looked a little too tiny before the crop. I have had some editors force image sizes when they should have just refreshed browsers. These I revert back in a few days after the caches settle. I think I will add a browser refresh note in any future crops.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the other crop to maintain the aspect ratio. Hopefully that will make all happy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Though I don't like the look of his right eye. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The squarer image is better,IMHO; the infobox crop looks a bit unbalanced. If you insist on a more rectangular image, I would suggest cropping it again from the original into more of a portrait by keeping about the same amount of space on either side of Harper's face. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the other editor preffered the rectangular to balance with the other images. I just re-cropped it to center better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant aesthetic principles are Headroom (photographic framing) and Rule of thirds. The cropped version is superior. There is not really a BLP issue here. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is mostly over. There is no BLP issue. This page is not the place to discuss which image is better and for what reasons. --Onorem (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree but I thought this board would be easier than the 50+ article talk pages that the images are used on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles Payne (journalist)

Charles Payne (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Stanley Galt continues to remove the section Paid stock promotions despite it being of note and sourced by http://www.sec.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsloughter (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the rest of the article turns out to be copyvio, so I've reverted to the last pre-copyvio version. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Galt (talk · contribs) continues to remove sourced material and add copyvio material. I don't want to edit war, could use some help here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be right about the copyright violations - I suggest you report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this, it seems that User:Stanley Galt hasn't been properly informed regarding policy - I've left a note on his talk page. I'd wait to see how he responds, and if the copy-pasting continues, report it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So having looked a little more closely at this, I now think the Paid stock promotions should be removed, as it's sourced to a blog, and states allegations as fact. I've removed it per WP:BLP and opened a discussion on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup - the edit-warring and copy-pasting shouldn't distract us from maintaining standards. Since an IP has joined the edit war, I've asked that the page be semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Galt continues to replace the page with copyvio material after being warned. I've opened a discussion at ANI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Including name of hospital where celeb is being treated

I've found myself in a dispute at Amanda Bynes. Am I being overly cautious in thinking Wikipedia shouldn't include the name of the hospital where a celebrity is currently residing for psychiatric treatment? To me it seems the same as including their home address, which I'm under the impression is not permitted. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

it certainly doesn't seem necessary to include the name of the hospital, though I'm not sure that policy would outright forbid it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point it seems like gratuitous and highly non-encyclopedic detail, unless the hospital were itself highly notable for some extraordinary reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Theoldsparkle bringing it up for discussion and alerting me to it. Thank you.

My feeling, both as a journalist and a longtime Wikipedia editor is that we don't censor pertinent information from a reliable-source publication or website — as is the case here. A person does not live at a hospital, a public institution, so I'm not sure how the comparison with a private home address is viable. We can point to countless mainstream articles about public figures who have had treatment at hospitals and rehab centers and the like — "where" is simply one of the "W"s in journalism's Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Obviously, an encyclopedia article isn't a newspaper report, but these are basics of scholarly and research writing as well.

I'm not sure why the locales of Frances Farmer's or Percy Crosby's institutionalization, for instance, or even the private rehab centers of Lindsay Lohan are named but that we'd somehow make a special exception for Amanda Bynes. It's not a mater of timing — Lohan's treatment locales were parts of major news stories in hundreds of outlets from the moment she went it. Moreover, Bynes is an adult, not a minor. This seems like unnecessary censoring of material widely available to the public and, as noted in the paragraph above, pertinent from any standard research standpoint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Details of a person's medical treatment (including psychological treatment), or even the fact that such treatment has occurred/is occurring, is protected personal data under HIPAA rules. Unlike some other (legal) protections, HIPAA protections don't fall away when one achieves celebrity status. Unless widely reported, I wouldn't include, and even if widely reported, I would make sure it was clearly cited to RS, because unless based merely on a sighting someone somewhere has most likely violated HIPAA. Dwpaul (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - The laws have changed since Frances Farmer's and Percy Crosby's institutionalization. Dwpaul (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't think we actually have a reliable source for this. The information is sourced to Huffpo, which attributes it to TMZ, which I don't think is a RS: "According to TMZ, the doctors at the UCLA Medical Center treating Amanda asked that she be held long term, and a judge granted their request." Since Huffpo seems to think it's necessary to add "according to TMZ" I think we should do likewise. Or better yet just remove this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We should not be using TMZ as a BLP source, especially for information like this. I have removed it from the article and asked for indefinite pending changes protection. I cannot fathom why no one asked for pending changes for this particular article months ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources notwithstanding, I agree that this belongs, as a standard "Where". That is, if the info about her sentencing is there at all. No real opinion on that. The privacy afforded someone who personally seeks treatment shouldn't reasonably extend to someone who was publicly sent to a hospital by a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "sentencing." A person so mentally unwell as to be subject to a 5150 proceeding doesn't give up their right to privacy as a result of the proceeding. "Patients admitted under section 5150 retain all rights under the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (begins with WIC-5000) and under the Constitution and other laws. As citizens, patients do not lose their rights by being hospitalized or receiving services. With the exception of being able to freely leave the facility they are placed in, patients have all rights accorded to a voluntarily admitted client." - Ibid. A 5150 proceeding is not a criminal prosecution, and there is no compelling need for the public to know the location or other details of psychiatric treatment. Dwpaul (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the word in a less-formal sense. Just meaning she was ordered by a court to be detained for a set term, for inappropriate behaviour. Didn't mean to imply she gave up any legal rights. Still not seeing how this hurts her privacy in any real sense, but I suppose the law does carry more weight than my perceptions of reality. I fold. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't detained for "inappropriate behavior," she was committed because she apparently, at least temporarily, lost her mind. There is a difference (and the fact pattern here is a little different than that other LA bad girl celeb LL, of whom you might have been thinking). Dwpaul (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Many people lose their minds without getting the police involved. If it wasn't for the trespassing/gasoline thing, she'd have remained free to make her own confidential decisions about her mental health. But the resulting behaviour lead to a public court decision on whether treatment for the perceived problem would occur. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

And no, I don't think of Lindsay Lohan. It took me this long to even figure out who you meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with OP: drop hospital name and location. (Per Orange Mike.) Andreas JN466 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes clean-up needed

Guess what the reference for Amanda Byne's birth date is? It's sourced to ""Airport Authority Police Dept. Notice to Appear" from gossip site TMZ. I can think of at least three policies this violates. Anyone care to do some BLP clean-up on that article? I would do it myself, but I suspect I would end up with a much shorter article so perhaps someone with a gentler hand would like to take a look first... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Privacy of youths personal info

I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy (talk)

Monique Lamoureux-Kolls

This person is searched as Monique Lamoureux-Kolls. Her legal name, and the name she goes by is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use WP:RM at the article talk page, presenting your evidence. GiantSnowman 15:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

But the sources seem divided between her maiden and married names...--ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of DYK discussion

A discussion about BLPs on DYK is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK? StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Tyne Stecklein

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

I have never read an article that was written as poorly as this one. Wikipedia should take it down and have someone who can write redo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.203.57 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed most of the questionable content; a reminder that you are able to edit articles yourself. GiantSnowman 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Donald Featherstone (wargamer)

Donald Featherstone (wargamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been repeated edits to this page, stating that Featherstone died yesterday. So far none have been properly sourced, and in consequence have been reverted. The only citation provided at all has been to a Reddit page, [5] - which I consider clearly not WP:RS. Can I ask that others keep an eye on the page? I think semi-protection may also be necessary if this continues and no RS can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 15:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week until this settles down. GiantSnowman 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A person claiming to be Featherstone's son-in-law has posted at Talk:Donald Featherstone (wargamer), stating that the reports are correct - I see no reason to doubt that he is who he says who he is, but I'm not sure how to proceed, given that we still don't have a published source. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, even when AGFing, we need to know that X is related to Y - anybody could make that claim, and with no RS to V, I feel the article should stay as it is for now. GiantSnowman 15:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bill McKibben

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

Should a random joke from satirical Spy magazine be included in the "Criticism" section? Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like satire and undue weight at best. Removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

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

Hi, all! I'm coming here for a quick question.

I'm an OTRS agent, handling ticket:2013071510009944. The person who emailed is a representative of Dr. Chopra, and the doctor himself was in on the email thread. There were several changes that they requested someone make to the article, and I made a few at [6]. This change was reverted, and discussed per WP:BRD (tread at [7]).

Which brings me to my question. Because I'm an OTRS agent in direct contact with the doctor, do I have a COI? Is there a policy that allows me to make edits on behalf of the subject (following consensus of course), or should I make edit requests? I assume this isn't the first time this has happened for BLPs, that's why I'm asking here. If this is the wrong place, my apologies. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have COI since you are interpreting Chopra's wishes without benefit to yourself.

Business Wire is a terrible source; just PR fluff, not independent reporting.

The Ig Nobel prize should stay. It was widely reported.[8][9][10]

I don't think Chopra will ever be completely happy with his biography on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have a COI as long as you are applying your independent judgment (as appears to be the case from the talk page discussion) on which edits to make, and take responsibility for the changes. If, hypothetically, an OTRS agent were to instead act as a direct proxy for the subject that would raise COI concerns, which wouldn't forbid article editing per se, but would suggest that talk page would be the better venue.

As the situation currently stands, you can simply discuss the changes on their merits. Just be sure to be clear when you are mentioning your own views versus informing what the subject's representative say through the OTRS system. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a COI at all, unless you have one (because you're a big fan of the man or whatever), in which case you should recuse yourself from handling the ticket. But if that's not the case, you are simply acting as a go between - addressing the (possibly valid or not) concerns of a subject and our policies. As long as you edit the article following the letter and the spirit of those policies and guidelines, you're OK. This is not about giving the subject what they want, but rather ensuring that the article is neutral and well sourced. As a side note, often subjects dislike the fact that criticism that would otherwise be scattered around the internetz is suddenly in a centralized place, easily accessible and distilled down to its basics. Part of your "job" is to make sure they understand that's inevitable, but at the same time ensure that the negative stuff doesn't drown out everything else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

extended absence

Per an example of WP:Tiptibism by ArbCom, I say "Ave atque vale" Collect (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Err sorry what? GiantSnowman 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Lippman

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

Over the past few days a conflicted editor has been adding a section accusing the subject of the article of corruption based on the editors own blog and own complaint with the Southern District of New York. I have removed it twice now, explaining on the editors talk page that it violates the no original research rule, the conflict rule, the neutral viewpoint rule, and the verifiable sources rule (and probably others) but he has ignored my comments and continues to reinsert the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneekypat (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the questionable content and left a warning on the user's talk page. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)