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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:51, 29 October 2013

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

List of sportspeople by nickname

In an attempt to tidy-up the above and replace part of it (for footballers) with a well referenced article I have remove entries which are either uncited, poorly cited (blogs etc) or just insults, such as Judas for Sol Campbell. My attempts are being reverting as they seem OK to the editor. Surely the normal requirements for BLPs apply here and uncited entries, entries sourced from blogs and insults should be removed?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP absolutely applies there, and you should feel free to report this to either WP:ANI or WP:3RR if appropriate. That said, dialogue is important, and they might think you're doing away with everything, rather than trying to at least source most of it. Regardless, in reality anyone is free to nuke anything that is BLP-related and unsourced, without so much as a "sorry dude". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and removed (hopefully) every unreferenced entry from this list. Giant Snowman 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Mishra

against the wikipedia policy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukeshacharya (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be a candidate for deletion under WP:GNG, but it is unclear what complaint you are trying to express about the article. What about it is "against the wikipedia policy"? 14:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the article a bit. I think he probably passes GNG.

But the problem here, I think, is one of mistaken identity. I don't think this gymnast is the same person as this guy whose background is a bit more salacious. David in DC (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, it might be the same guy. [1] David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the same guy. Here's my work [2]. Please note the final edit summary and help if you can. Sources may appear in the coming days that can serve as substitutes. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Birmingham

"== biorgraphy of Stephen Birmingham lists his book The Grandees as published in 1997 but I have a copy (without an isbn number) published in 1971, =="

In the biography of Stephen Birmingham his book The Grandees, America's Sephardic Elite, is listed as published in 1997 and has an isbn number, but I have an edition published in 1971 without an isbn number that you might want to add. Sincerely, Virginia Castro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.186.101 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this falls under WP:Original research. If you can find a citable reference that states the book was published in 1971, you are more than welcome to add this information to the article (with the citation). Without a citation to the contrary, the article must rely on its present sources (specifically ones returned using the ISBN) and place the date of publication at 1997, even if you have a book that states otherwise. Also see WP:Published, which includes a description of circumstances where a book may be distributed on a limited basis but not "published" as we define it here. Dwpaul (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Worldcat, the IP editor is likely correct: http://www.worldcat.org/title/grandees-americas-sephardic-elite/oclc/130038&referer=brief_results --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Can WorldCat be used as a cited source here? Dwpaul (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a template for it, so I'm assuming the answer is, "yes". I'll add this to the article.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to state for the record that this does not fall under WP:OR. A reliable source for the publication date of a book is... the copyright page of the book itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Rooks

This article has been blanked several times in the last few days by an IP editor who wants it to be removed, accusing another IP editor of sabotaging it with unreliable sources; the editor who removes the content also replaces it with personal attacks against a person claimed to be the other editor. Many of the references appear to be primary sources or not available online, so it isn't clear whether they verify the article's content, and I'm not certain whether this meets WP:GNG - I proposed it for deletion but the {{prod}} template was removed. Peter James (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced prod. We'll see what happens. FWIW, all sources in old versions are apparently court documents, so this seems a clear case of both BLP and OR problems.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the sources that were there appeared to be market wire "pr" releases.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In declining speedy deletion, User:JamesBWatson (an admin) chose to restore the policy-violating material. I have removed it again - and if it is restored, I will continue to do so, regardless of the status of the person restoring it. Crap like that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form it's a non-notable BLP so Afd anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a non-notable BLP, so I have taken it to AfD. I have seen several editors, here and elsewhere, indicating that they think it should be deleted, and more than one of them has specifically mentioned AfD, so I can't begin to understand why none of them nominated it there before I did. However, lack of evidence of notability is the only problem. The essential facts of the negative statements in the article are supported by highly reliable sources, much more so than is to be seen in hundreds of articles on non-notable subjects that are taken to AfD and are not blanked. I see no good reason whatever why this one should be blanked (or virtually blanked) while deletion is being discussed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see why the article should be blanked. The the sources seem perfectly adequate to cover BLP to me, at least for the duration of an AFD. Sources not being available online is not a lack of reliability or verifiability, so that is a non-starter. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:BLPPRIMARY? We do not cite court documents as references for convictions in BLPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. [3] I have also made it clear in deleting the offending matter again that I will take this to the WMF if necessary - it is worth noting that the supposed 'highly reliable sources' included alleged 'court documents' actually hosted on the website of a business Rooks has been in a legal dispute with... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this at considerable length, and decided that I was mistaken in declining the speedy deletion nomination as an attack page. I intended to come back and delete the article, but by the time I had a chance to get back on line Drmies had already deleted it. I believe I was reading CSD G10 too narrowly. I also think that I was giving too much weight to some aspects of the BLP policy and too little to other aspects. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Romanek

Please review Stan Romanek -- This page seems a thinly veiled attack on the subject - headings are polemical and lack objective tone (e.g., "===A Jaw-Dropping Inconsistency==="). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35A0:1B40:F460:19BF:9B8E:9DE (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the more of the worst offending material. Giant Snowman 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Spooner

The name of Frank Spooner's wife is Mary Louise Flippo not Mary Catherine Flippo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.81.172 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Frank Spooner's wife (and children) is unreferenced, so I have removed. Giant Snowman 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Bloom

User talk:92.12.51.89 is repeatedly changing the straightforward wp:rs cited statement that Godfrey Bloom's father was a fighter pilot, describing it as a piece of puffery! JRPG (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not straightforward at all. I could claim in an interview that my father was Superman, it doesn't make it accurate. Both of you are edit warring, please take it to the article talk page. Giant Snowman 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Fishburne

This article is exclusively sourced to tabloids and gossip blogs. I removed these sources, but another editor keeps restoring them. Please advise.

(Note that I've also nominated the article for deletion as I don't think this young woman meets WP:GNG, lacking the high-quality sources addressing her in detail that would be needed to write an encyclopedic biography. See WP:BLP1E, see WP:NOTINHERITED: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative.) Draco^E 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's see what people say at the AFD regarding notability/sourcing. Giant Snowman 16:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being discussed at AFD are not exempt from BLP, so material that clearly violates BLP should be removed.--ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Lynn Winmill

B. Lynn Winmill is a US federal district judge who recently issued a temporary restraining order in a case alleging a former employee was planning to release the company's source code. The judge took note of the fact that the employee self identified as a "hacker" on his web site in deciding to order that the employee's hard drive be imaged and returned to him without first giving him notice. This was criticized in a blog and picked up on slashdot. An IP keeps inserting a tendentious description of the judge's action, based on the blog, slashdot and the court order itself. None of these meets the requirements of RS and BLP, and, as several people mentioned on slashdot, a careful read of the court order does not support the blog's claims, e.g. there were additional factors supporting the TRO. I've already reverted 3 times, so another pair of eyes would be helpful here.--agr (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The judgement is real, the judge's only decision of public note and concern is this as shown in the headlines generated by this decision. It is a fact that the judgement happened and it is cited. It is a fact that at issue is the 4th amendment and its protection against unreasonable search and seizure is at issue, there is a citation on this that while not "primary" is absolutely valid and describes the issue. It is a fact that being a self-described "hacker" was central to judgement granting the search warrant and this is verifiable in the judgement and the article cited. It is a FACT that this generated controversy in popular online forums such as slashdot's "YRO" - "your rights online" section. This is clearly cited, and citing the actual online controversy is a valid citation of a PRIMARY source by definition, it is a direct link to the controversy regardless of what you think of that forum. Repeatedly deleting everything on this issue on the disputed assertion that this is badly cited is inappropriate censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorbie (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The jugement is indeed real, here is a link http://www.scribd.com/doc/176684845/Battelle-v-Southfork-Order . Judges issue ruling all the time and quite often they make someone unhappy. We simply can't include every disputed ruling a judge makes in their bio. It is bedrock policy on Wikipedia that contentious information on a living person must be based on reliable sources. Blogs and online discussion forums like slashdot are not acceptable for this purpose. The ruling itself is a primary source, and, while usable, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." per WP:PRIMARY. Your opinion that this is a 4th amendment issue is contradicted on the article talk page by someone who claims to be a lawyer, and neither opinion can be a basis for what goes in the article. If this particular ruling gets significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, it may merit inclusion in the judge's bio, subject to WP:WEIGHT. Absent any such coverage, it does not belong in Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally agree with this, it is my understanding that WP:BLPPRIMARY supersedes the general application of WP:PRIMARY, so the Scribd document is not usable. E.g.: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Am I correct in this understanding? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a judge issues a ruling that is notably controversial as reflected by sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I think we can cite the judge's ruling itself as a source for what that ruling actually says. But any interpretation of the ruling requires a reliable secondary source. BLPPRIMARY goes on to say "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." --agr (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY. And I'm fairly sure Slashdot is not a reliable source, so the IP needs one that says exactly what they are attempting to insert into the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Steven Dorff, Blu-Cigs Spokesman"

why a do follow backlink to blusigs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.178.205 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the reference? Seems valid enough. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're referring to. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiLeaks

Yes, this is about Chelsea Manning again. Template:WikiLeaks has for quite a while included both names ("Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)"), but User:Yworo has removed it as a BLP violation, and claimed a 3RR exemption. Now, I thought the consensus (after much discussion and arbitration) was that "Bradley" does not in itself contradict WP:MOS and is not a BLP violation. Would we be able to get some clarity on this? St Anselm (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little disingenuous to claim that merely mentioning Chelsea used to be Bradley is in itself a BLP violation. The name change is not universally known, and it helps people identify the person by the name they know them as in the nav template. And if I were Yworo I'd be wary of testing that 3RR immunity principle in a context like this one. Since the article already obviously mentions it (or should it be removed from there as well?) this is more a case of seeking consensus, not yelling "BLP!!" because you don't like how something is worded. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Ehrlich article -- WP:Conflict of interest, formatting and sourcing issues

See here and here. Neither version of the article is good, but the one that User:Martyehrlich (who claims to be Marty Ehrlich) keeps reverting to is certainly the worse of the two versions. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left some thoughts at User talk:Martyehrlich. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including for the revert. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

I'm going offline for a while. Could others please keep an eye on this article? An IP is adding the implication that the victim is an accomplice. [4] There has been discussion on this point on the article's talk page. The article's wording may well be improvable - but it's a sensitive BLP issue and needs consensus. I've warned the IP on their talk page and in my last revert's edit summary about the consequences of edit warring. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits here have clearly crossed the BLP line, so I've semiprotected the page for three days to prevent further IP vandalism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This allegation (that the victim was complicit in her abduction and/or the murder of her mother and brother) was exhaustively discussed here [5] and on the article's Talk page[6] weeks ago. There has never been any official statement to support the allegation, and official statements discredit it. Unless this changes, the allegation should be immediately reverted as a BLP violation if reintroduced. Dwpaul (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Manning (rower)

Patrick Manning (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Defamatory material inserted by IP with (apparently) an off-Wiki grudge. Reported to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Reich

Upon examining a recent edit to this article I noticed the single sentence discussing Karr's transition that read "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change" and this had one source. Then I noticed this source was Inside Edition which is essentially a tabloid. I questioned this as being a valid source on the article's talk page, and another editor added several more "sources", all of which (including the original Inside Edition link) are included below.

"John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
"John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
"http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.

However there is a big problem here. All of the sources included either explicitly reference the Inside Edition claim (one article uses a nebulous "it's been reported") or they don't even support the statement being made. If the Inside Edition article isn't reliable, neither are the rest of the sources that refer to it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed all of the sources and the information it was supporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit hasty. I went to two of your links at random, the one from CNN and the one from Today, and can't see Inside Edition being mentioned in either one. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said again. Either the sources cited IE or they don't even support the statement being made. The CNN and Today links fall under the latter category. Read the articles again, then ask yourself if they support the statement "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change". Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi

Certain users have blatantly violated the BLP policy by putting some extremely maligning, libelous and controversial sentences to be made appearing as Wikipedia voice, although the matter is not proven anywhere. The person mentioned in the article is a highly popular and respected political leader occupying a post as democratically elected Chief Minister of a large Indian state. Link: The last sentence if this para. [7] has extremely hateful content appearing as Wikipedia's voice. While discussing it on the talk page, these bunch of users threaten to block/ notify for not towing to their line. These users are Sitush, Darkness Shines, Maunus, RegentsPark. The user Darkness Shines is accused of being a proxy of a banned user T-banned MarshalN20. Many others have raised objections to make certain malintentional sentences to be removed or not made appear as Wikipedia voice, but they steamroll everyone, term it as consensus (which is infact discussion among these bunch of users only) and threaten to block the person. One has not seen so much vitriolic, hateful content in any other BLP. Even a news report termed as hoax has been included in the article [8]. Request to please look into the issue and make some modifications in libelous contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True win (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman has earned some press lately for making some inflammatory statements about Barack Obama. On Wednesday, an IP editor added what at first blush appeared to be vandalism to his article -- a statement that he "molested his children." But the IP also cited this Ohio appellate court decision, which appears to bear out the claim, more or less. Amazingly, however, there are very few (or no) reliable sources on the subject, as far as I can tell. The only candidate appears to be this source, whose reliability lies somewhere in a gray zone. I lean toward it being citable with attribution. The author, Terry Krepel, has a declared political bias and suggests his stories are self-edited (see here), but he's a veteran professional journalist with strong creds, he's been cited a number of times elsewhere on WP (without attribution, no less), his website is independently funded, and his language in the article about molestation is arguably overcautious.

My question: Can material from this source regarding the subject's "inappropriate behavior with his children" or "inappropriate touching" be added to this BLP? Talk page discussion at Talk:Larry Klayman#BLP.

I realize this query could have gone equally to WP:RSN, but given the inflammatory nature of the allegations I thought this would be a place to start. I have no skin in this game except that to hope that a consensus is reached. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were better sourced, the material does not belong in the article. At the moment, though, neither the primary source nor the opinion piece can be used in support of this material. In my view, it's not even a close decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few sources, but I don't think we're at the threshold yet where we could consider inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appellate court decision cannot be used as a sole source, per BLP/PRIMARY. The Tripod website is definitively not an acceptable source for BLP. I agree with Gamaliel that there is not enough reliable secondary-source coverage at this time to permit us to include this incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all three of you. I'd like to understand why you believe the Krepel source is unreliable (not just whether). As I see it there are factors cutting both ways. An analysis of those factors (and any others) would be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think , after having read all the links, that these allegations will likely never have a reliable source for their inclusion. Given that accusations of this nature especially require impeccable sources, we have essentially nothing to go on here. Whether we are talking about the blog or the court document, these allegations (and that is all they are) have been leveled in the context of a divorce. The decision makes it clear that the allegations were followed up by the authorities, and no charges were, or are likely to be, filed (at least in regards to those specific allegations). If there were further secondary sources to back it up, the most I say we could use the decision to support would be something like, "Courts have in the past questioned his veracity in serious matters." Unless and until a news outlet reports something more substantial, there's not much I think we can say. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unreliable? Because it's exactly what you say - a self-published personal blog by someone with a political bias. That kind of source, regardless of whether it's on the right or on the left, is precisely the sort of source that BLP specifically prohibits from being used for contentious, potentially-defamatory material. The sort of allegations being discussed here are the most damning sort of defamatory material and must have sources that are beyond reproach. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't do a lot of BLP editing so this is a good education for me. The message I'm getting from both of you is that, in a BLP, the more contentious the material, the more reliable the sourcing must be. That's not explicit in WP:BLP but it certainly makes sense and should probably be added to the policy. (My reading of WP:BLP#Reliable sources was essentially that for BLPs, and especially for contentious material, you have to be extra careful to only use reliable sources but that the standard for what constitutes a reliable source was the same as for non-BLP articles. Hence I was analyzing the Krepel source using my usual non-BLP lens.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPSPS for the specific policy section I refer to: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. The idea is that anything which we republish about a living person should have first been published by a source that is generally considered to have had some level of editorial content control and fact-checking - i.e., a peer-reviewed academic paper, an online news organization such as Politico, a dead-tree book from a legitimate publisher, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, missed that. Well that settles it then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Froud

the whole personal life section needs a re-write, persons are not linked nor explained and teh Authors son is getting a listing here when he shuld have another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.88.144 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Giant Snowman 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Phillips

I wish to request semi protected, auto-confirmed, or some other assistance for the Stone Phillips article. Over the past few days a person or persons keeps removing valid, properly sourced, information regarding the birth name of Stone Phillips. I believe it may be a case of sock puppetry with one person using two similar usernames as well as an IP. I have attempted to establish a dialogue with the person(s) both on the article talk page and their individual talk pages to no avail. I've explained to them that the source for the information is one thats been used on multiple other Wikipedia articles and has always proven to be accurate before and even provided them with a link to the source. Other experienced editors have also reverted the undue removal of the information but the person(s) continue to persist. I don't wish to get myself in trouble for edit warring, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sector001 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rep for Mr. Phillips has contacted OTRS regarding this, and I'll update when I have more information. Hopefully because we've replied to them the attempts to remove the (allegedly) incorrect name will stop, but if they don't then feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've verified that the book does list the name "Lester Stockton Phillips" via Amazon's "look inside" feature. But I've also looked him up in the usually reliable Biography in Context database, and that lists him as "Stone Stockton Phillips". If we find a few other sources with the latter name, maybe we can just ignore the one source listing the former name as an outlier. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think (fwiw) that it is probably a good idea to remove the challenged detail and put "Stone Stockton Phillips" because I'd bet a pound to a penny it is going to go that way, and it'd be nice to get it right asap. It really does look that the hitherto solid reference source has got it wrong this time. --Roxy the dog (Morphic Message Me!) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get a formal citation for that I'll change it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my intervention in this, I just had a peek at the page history, I have no interest nor reference, just a curiosity. as to what it was about. It seems Mr. Phillips wants to get this corrected, that's all. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm leaning towards the source that identifies him as "Lester Stockton Phillips". It's hard to imagine that his parents gave him the first name of "Stone". It's clearly a nickname. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought as well, Liz. Mr. Phillips was born in an era when parents usually didn't pick non-traditional names for their children, as so many are wont to do now. As far as it being Mr. Phillips with the two usernames on the article edit summary, well as we all know there's no verification required for any John Q. Public to claim to be Stone Phillips when selecting a username. If an official, verifiable, representative of the real Mr. Phillips has requested correction/change then I have no problem with making it so, obviously. But to have an unsubstantiated username or IP user bend us to their will by just being headstrong is wrong IMHO. Sector001 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. lets just wait and see. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Stone" is not that uncommon as a name, and realistically we can't expect to measure its validity simply because we feel he was born on or before a certain date. In any case, I explained to his rep that we need either for the author of the source to disown his work, a competing source (in which case we can fall back to WP:ON), or a primary one for negative verification, but we'll see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm all for real names unless the subject of the BLP objects. After all, if Wikipedia can honor a porn star's request to delete her real name, it can do the same for a news reporter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Seriously, FRFrog, you've heard of another man with the first name of Stone? The closest I know is Rock Hudson but that was completely made-up. L.

Yeah, actually there was a guy at a company I worked for a few years ago. Stone was actually his middle name, but he went by that. I guess it was kewl. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sector001: Is this something you or other editors are emotionally attached to? Could we remove it on a simple courtesy basis? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that gives his name as Stone Stockton Phillips. It's a long Google Books URL, so I had to shorten it: ow.ly/qbRpH Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AHA! Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sector001: As per the source provided by @Taylor Trescott:, and standard operating procedure in these cases, I've amended the article to remove the "Lester" thing. We can add a note in the lede specifying that there is a source that has him under a different name, but ~~one~~ two conflicting sources plus the communication from the subject's representative tilts this in favor of the nays. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's all good with me. I try not to get too emotionally attached to articles, especially a news guy I don't really have much of an opinion on either way. My primary goal is always accuracy first. This was just a first occasion that there was some question as to the reliability of that particular source, which I've used on several other Missouri-related articles over the years. Perhaps if it had been another veteran editor things would have been different (for one, we'd have been much more likely to work it out ourselves). But when it was a brand new editor, using multiple names/IPs and seeming to be a bit recalcitrant, I didn't want to simply give up because some Phillips fan didn't like the first name or considered it unflattering. "Warts and all" is usually my motto. THANKS to everyone for all the comments and advice. Much appreciated. Have a great Wiki kind of day, y'all! Sector001 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did everything right, you had a valid reliable source, and the IPs and/or SPAs were edit warring. It's just that they think that's the way to solve their problem. Usually the second step when they get reverted and blocked is a strongly worded email to OTRS. So everything went according to plan

§FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RVIVR

Editors continually reporting a biased statement, citing tumblr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RVIVR&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVIVR

Thanks!

There is a request for page protection currently active for this page. The statements should stop after a lock's been slapped on it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. W. Johnson

I'm reposting a request[9] from the Help Desk here:

Dear Wikip33edia

I am writing about the entry on myself - RW Johnson. There is a lot of poor information here, supplied by a small sect of Trotskyites who wish to do me down for obvious ideological reasons. They have supplied you with information citing, for example, the one critical review (by a rival writer) of a best-selling and well-reviewed book I wrote (South Africa's Brave New World) and they also both fomented the agitation alleging racism by me and then supplied you with stuff about it. All the nonsense about baboons.

For the record, several members of my family are black or married to black people. I have a black nephew and niece, black grand-nephews, a black daughter in law, a whole set of black in-laws - and well, need I go on ? The idea that I am a white racist is, frankly, laughable. Also, the biog online makes no mention of the fact that I was a Professor at the Sorbonne, that one of my books (KAL 007) was filmed in Hollywood, that I am the Chairman of the Advisory Board (and also a founder) of Good Governance Africa and that I travel the Continent a good deal trying to set up GGAs in all the major centres. Similarly, no less than three of my former students featured in the British cabinet of 2010 - they all clubbed together to send me a photo of it, signed by all three - Hunt, Huhne and Hague). Perhaps half of the staff of the Economist are also my former students including Bill Emmott, the former editor. Similarly, I have many friends among the French political elite inc. a number of Communists and Socialists and also the Gaullist leader, Francois Fillon. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Max Price, is another of my former students. In the official history of Magdalen College my name features more than any other in the modern period. As Senior Bursar of Magdalen I was responsible for the completion of the Great Tower (then restored), a distinction which I share only with Cardinal Wolsey who helped erect it in the first place. I was also responsible for turning the whole college around financially and then for dramatically improving its academic results. I also helped set up the Stanford University campus in Oxford. 1If you go to my website, rwjohnson.co.za, you will get a far better view of what I do. Frankly, what you have about me at the moment is just a disgrace.

RW Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.243.59 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [10]

The article talk page includes an OTRS complain reply and noted action from February 2010. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not able to add the product of original research to articles, even if invited to do so by the subject. Any information here must be reflected in reliable sources cited in the article. While your accomplishments are impressive, only those that are documented in/by an independent, reliable source can be included here, with citations of those sources. If you would like to supply links or directives to these sources as materials for editors to work with, you could certainly do so on the Talk page. Conversely, if there are specific, unsourced or poorly-sourced claims in the article you feel should be removed, you are free to point those out, either here or on the article's Talk page; these will generally be removed promptly under the BLP policy (assuming citations cannot be found to support them). Re: the previous OTRS complaint, it is unclear to me what the exact material was that was being challenged and/or whether it has been reintroduced subsequent to the entry in Talk. Perhaps the subject could advise. Dwpaul (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig von Mises Institute

There appears to be a BLP violation via synthesis of material of David Bernstein on the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The following has been repeatedly added to the article.

In 2008 George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein wrote on the The Volokh Conspiracy website that he refused overtures to publish with the Institute because of his view that the Institute "play[s] footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.

The actual source contains.

Yet, as Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don't want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

My problem with the addition is that the actual source does not explicity have Bernstein saying that the Ludwig Von Mises Institute "plays footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. The second paragraph of Bernstein (above) throws LVM into a general category with all kinds of possible issues, but does not specifically make the statement being presented. Presenting the opinions of a person is something that should not be taken lightly. If we are going to ascribe a position or statement to a living person we better damn well make sure that that person said exactly what we are saying that they said.

A literal reading of Bernstein would at most imply that he thinks the LVM partakes in "newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc" because he ascribes the LVM to "the latter types", which would appear to mean the last few categories from the 1st paragraph. But even this requires some Original Research on the part of the reader of the section. This section should be removed immediately as a clear violation of BLP in that it ascribes an opinion to a living person that is not explicitly stated in the source. To be clear, this is not an issue about LVM. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to split the finest of hairs. Someone who adheres to "newer racist theories" is a racist; someone who professes "old anti-Semitic themes" is an anti-Semite. Bernstein is clearly documented as holding the view that the edit ascribes to him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to where Bernstein explicitly said that the LVM plays "footsie" with Racists and anti-Semites. Arzel (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best for the Wikipedia article to say that Bernstein thinks LVM plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person in that range).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is this a BLP issue? The subject here is an organization, not an individual. There is already a thread on this and some apparent general sanctions mentioned at AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charitably, an argument could be made against this on the basis of WP:RS. I don't believe the argument would have merit, but it could be made. However, there is absolutely no argument to be made on the basis of WP:BLP. There just isn't a particular living person on the receiving end, nor is it so small a group that individuals are singled out.

I move that we close this discussion with a clear ruling that there is no WP:BLP violation. If this leads editors to shop around for another forum, perhaps WP:RSN, now that they've bombed here and WP:ANI, I can't stop them, but I don't particularly recommend it, either. MilesMoney (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that LVMI is too big to qualify for BLP protection. But, David Bernstein is not too big. When a living person is misquoted, or severely disparaging remarks are wrongly attributed to a living person, that's a BLP violation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would definitely be a WP:BLP problem if we misquoted Bernstein. However, we have done no such thing. As User:Nomoskedasticity so clearly put it, any attempt to deny that we accurately summarized Bernstein depends on hair-splitting that's hard to take seriously. MilesMoney (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you split the hair one way so Bernstein characterized LVMI as sympathizing with racists and antisemites, but you split the hair the other way so he didn't, then it's very much a BLP problem for the article to say he did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikipedia:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute is relevant current WP:ANI discussion. Please do not characterize how various discussions are going which is only your personal opinion and not an admin ruling. User:Carolmooredc 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop interfering with discussions that are their proper place by trying to send participants elsewhere. This is claimed be a BLP violation and this page is the correct forum for determining whether the claim is true.

It does not belong on WP:ANI and should never have been raised there, particularly while this discussion was still active. At best, WP:ANI might be a last resort for appealing WP:BPN, although I wouldn't recommend that sort of this. MilesMoney (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, MilesMoney was topic banned for six months on libertarian topics, broadly construed, from the ANI. That would include this article.

I am quite certain that the article itself is SPS personal opinion piece and used in a POV manner. However, there are some BLP implications: the edit does seem to jump to narrow conclusions from a broader statement and possibly misrepresent the author. And the broader BLP implication is that editors keep adding negative info about the Institute or individuals affiliated with it and then try to get some negative comment about it in BLPs of affiliated individuals in order to make them look bad. Any article can have BLP problems if an individual is directly concerned or there is a strong implication that anyone involved in it has negative characteristics which are not sourced by WP:RS on a case by case basis. User:Carolmooredc 14:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed Bernstein

He rejects the idea that he is somehow being misrepresented by the post. Again, I am baffled by this, as the post reflects the objective logical meaning of the passage. (He does say that that "conspiracy theorists and racists and anti-Semites aren't separate categories" and thus "it would be more accurate to say "plays footise" with "anti-government conspiracy theorists, including those who promote anti-Semitic and racist conspiracy theories.") So, can we close this now, and move it to RSN? Steeletrap (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His statement does more accurately reflect what he wrote. But the WP:RS was rejected by most editors at WP:RSN and the WP:NPOV issues also have been brought up there and at the talk page. At some point in last day or two someone removed it. User:Carolmooredc 13:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan Morris

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

This BLP seems to have too much minor detail that borders on fluff to my eyes but I'd like a second opinion. Its a short article. Could someone take a look and make changes as needed? Some things in the article that seem non-notable are:

In 2009, Morris was living in Adelaide, Australia and reportedly spent only a few weeks a year in the Fairfield area
In the 1990s, he was reported to be the lowest-paid college president in Iowa, receiving an annual salary of $9,000 in 1994.
In 1994, Morris wrote the Foreword to the Maharishi's book "Science of Being and Art of Living." The 2001 edition, published by Plume (a division of Penguin), contains this Foreword. In it, Morris lays out a historical account of the Maharishi's contribution in the field of knowledge and the technologies for the development of human consciousness.
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Morris said that "coherent brain-wave patterns indicate greater creativity, intelligence, harmony with natural law and less neuroses" and "We believe that of all the presidential candidates, he [John Hagelin] has the most highly coherent brain."

Thanks in advance, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul

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

The article inaccurately states his views about same-sex marriage. I attempted to change it to comply with our sources, but another editor is edit-warring to keep the violation in. The exact same thing is happening over the exact same sentence in Political positions of Rand Paul.

I'm sure that WP:BLP allows me to revert as many times as I like, but I'd sooner let the community decide this in advance. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the NYT

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

MilesMoney's edit.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

PrarieKid's edit.

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

It is pretty clear. If anyone is violating BLP it is MilesMoney. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Arzel's interpretation. The citation says literally that Rand believes it should be left to the states, not that the states should make same-sex marriage illegal. Suspect that MilesMoney is really trying to say "the states should be the ones to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage," and I would propose that as a NPOV way to express the concept without giving undue weight. Dwpaul (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Paul does want states to make it illegal; he opposes same-sex marriage in his own state. MilesMoney (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I figured out Arzel's confusion. We know that:

Paul opposes any laws about same-sex marriage at the federal level, pro or con.
Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky.
Paul opposed same-sex marriage, personally.

What we don't know is what, if anything, Paul thinks of same-sex marriage laws in other states. It may well be that he endorses laws against same-sex marriage in states other than Kentucky, but we have no data so we can't say one way or the other.

I'm going to fix the article now to make this clear. MilesMoney (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just stick to what he says? The sources do not say what you claim them to say. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says he supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. MilesMoney (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT Where in that source does he say that he specifically supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky? He did say that Kentucky did decide what to do in Kentucky and that the Federal government should stay out of it. He does support Kentucky to do whatever it wants to do. Arzel (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rand said "... I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. ..." That does not say that he "endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky," it says that he endorses the right of Kentuckians to draft and pass their own law(s) on this topic without federal interference or encroachment. Perhaps Rand has said more about his opinion concerning Kentucky's law elsewhere, but not in these citations. Dwpaul (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a source that says his opposition to same-sex marriage is purely personal, and everything we know points in the opposite direction, so why would we suggest that it is? This looks like a violation of WP:BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a violation of WP:BLP to include an assertion not supported by the citations based on your inference that since no source you have seen says his opposition is purely personal, it must be therefore be more than that. Dwpaul (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily show you a source that says Paul "opposes same-sex marriage". How does this allow us to say that his opposition is purely personal? MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this simpler. Our sources says he opposes same-sex marriage. Our article says his opposition is personal, not political or legal. But here's a source confirming his support for a federal amendment against same-sex marriage. This makes it obvious that his opposition to same-sex marriage is not merely personal, so the article is currently violating WP:BLP by saying that it is. MilesMoney (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses neither "purely" nor "merely" to describe Paul's opposition. While you may think that something is obvious, the article need not and should not state something only because you think it so (and failing to state the "obvious" is not a BLP violation). The article should only include assertions supported by its citations, not by inferences. Dwpaul (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it's implying, and that's contrary to our sources. We should change it so that it has no such false implication. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the problem is the word "personally." That can imply a viewpoint that an official holds but tries to keep separate from his official duties. Absent a source that quotes him using that word, we should not draw that conclusion. But in the most recent sources cited, he clearly says the question should be left to the individual states and the federal government should be neutral on the matter. Perhaps

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

I tried to chase down the source of the ontheissues.org claim that Paul supports a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, but is was far from clear and seemed to be based on a broader survey question. If there is a clearer source that quotes him as supporting such an amendment, that could be mentioned too, perhaps with a year to reflect a possibly evolving position.--agr (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he said (as many libertarians do) that it's not for the government to decide, then it would make perfect sense to say his opposition is merely personal. However, he says it is for the government to decide, on a state level. This removes the argument for his opposition being merely personal. He also says:

"I really don’t understand any other kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman is what I believe in, and I just don't think it is good for us to change the definition of that."

Please note the last part, where he says he's against changing the definition of marriage. The plain meaning of this is that he opposes laws that redefine marriage to allow two men or two women.

It would be nice if he were clearer, but what we have so far doesn't leave any room for "it's only personal". MilesMoney (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's [11] another source. Ignore the site, just read the quote, which we can support from any number of highly reliable sources.

The gist is that he admits his support for states deciding on same-sex marriage instead of the federal government is not an end in itself, but part of a plan to delay the national legality of same-sex marriage so that those opposing it, such as himself, can "win back the hearts and minds of people".

I believe this makes it very clear that his opposition is not merely personal, but part of a political goal. MilesMoney (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with the language I proposed above?--agr (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Condell

I would like clarification on whether the following statement at Pat_Condell#Atheism is ok to have:

He has been criticised by Christian author Dinesh D'Souza on AOL News, who said "If the televangelists are guilty of producing some simple-minded, self-righteous Christians, then the atheist authors are guilty of producing self-congratulatory buffoons like Condell."

D'Souza, Dinesh (26 September 2007). "Why Is This Atheist So Smug?". AOL News. Archived from the original on 12 September 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 20 February 2009 suggested (help)

I am thinking it may not be allowed because of WP:BLPSPS.--A pinhead (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether AOL News can reasonably be considered a self-published source, but other than using Condell as a poster child to insult atheist authors as a group, I'm not sure what relevancy this specific comment by D'Souza has to the subject of this article. If D'Souza offers more specific criticisms of Condell at the cite than "self-congratulatory" and "buffoon," perhaps those would more appropriate to cite in this article. Dwpaul (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akahi Nui

This article has major issues. I think it is badly written, sourced and over exaggerated. The subject does appear to be notable as someone making claims to the throne of the Hawaiian Islands but as an encyclopedic article...it seems to be somewhat biased and the wording....odd to say the least. I am VERY concerned that Wikipedia is being used for political purposes here and the sourcing seems lacking and the links to off Wiki (I do see the irony in the word...yes) sites in the body of the article are inappropriate, to say the least.

All of the Hawaiian Royal family articles should be a concern to us as an encyclopedia as they are poorly written and sourced. Sadly, it appears there has been a great deal of time put into these articles but they are sadly lacking. Could we get more eyes on this article at least. The claims being made are not well sourced and seem to be a matter of contention. I have contacted the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and have joined Glam to better source these articles. Please...help!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this edit addressed your concerns, right?TheBlueCanoe 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Snyder (wrestler)

There were two edits claiming Kyle Snyder is the son of Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins. They were not sourced or verified, and are completely false. I'd like to prevent any further vandalization of this page in the future, thanks for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrocks05 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned the IP on their Talk page that the information was false (the wrestler's dad is Steve)[12]) and that citations are needed for future edits. Dwpaul (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Buehler

Antonio Buehler sounds like a self written biography. Nothing is verified or really even known. Most sources are from self made pages, such as youtube. He is a very controversial figure in Texas, in the city of Austin.

If this was a true page it will reveal the controversy, more details on his war against Austin Police Department and members such as Patrick Oborski. All links and truth can be found on articles from real news websites via search engine as I cannot post links here.

He was scheduled for a deletion and was never performed. I guess I am not the only one who knows this page is not in the terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.59.156 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Cuadra

"== FERNANDA CUADRA (on Nicaraguan Swimmer) =="

Dear Wikipedia Team:

I am Fernanda Cuadra. I considered the article written about me highly offensive and misguided. It describe my performance in an personal matter, when WIKIPEDIA article should not make personal appreciation, they should be descriptive. The part I am against and I demand to be removed is this "She rounded out the field with a poor swim to last place in 2:38.25, the slowest of all in the heats," I am OK with the rest of the article bu DEMAND this part is removed.

Kind regards,

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.83.199 (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the subject's performance in the 200m Individual Medley at the Sydney 2000 event is supported by a reliable source (the official results document[13]), though the characterization as "a poor swim" may not be NPOV. Otherwise it is all factual and should not be removed. Other editors may know if this is a fair characterization to make in the terminology of the sport, or not. Dwpaul (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will revise the sentence in the mean time to "She rounded out the field in last place in 2:38.25, the slowest time in all five heats" since this appears to be fully supported by the citation. Dwpaul (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we ought to remove the bit about the slowest time in the five heats. She only swam in one heat, and the conditions can vary from one heat to the next. I don't see that the sources made this multi-heat comparison. Sometimes people swim slower because the competition is not as good, and here the winner had the slowest winning time of these five heats --- and I'd bet a considerable sum that the fact of the slowest winning time is not in that winner's BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed WP:SYNTH from this article. Wifione ^Message 16:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster (again)

Last January Jodie Foster made a speech at the Golden Globes. In it she "came out" but without coming out, this is, she said "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age".[14] This was discussed here (archive) and the consensus was that as Foster never mentioned the word "lesbian" she should not be referred to as such, nor should be included into a LGBT category. The consensus has challenged by an user at its talkpage (Talk:Jodie_Foster#Redo_consensus), but there again was clear she should excluded per WP:BLPCAT. Ten months later, @Hearfourmewesique: is deciding the consensus to exclude should be ignored, first in the article itself, and later with knowledge that this has been discussed in the past. Despite the fact, Hear4 is persistently violating the BLP policy in the article's talk page as well.[15][16] Can we have more eyes about this, because it is clear that WP:SECONDARY references cannot decide the sexuality of a person, and that doing it can create legal problems to Wikipedia (Tom Cruise#Litigation), because Hear4 is applying WP:IDHT about the community consensus to exclude, as denoted at the relevant discussion Talk:Jodie_Foster#Golden_Globes_and_speech..._again.3F. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion I initiated on the article talk page. Editing others' comments is a direct violation of WP:TPO, hence me reverting my own comments back to what they were. I also listed, in a very clear and presentable fashion, all BLP policies that are directly pertinent to this, including (but not limited to) the part stating that "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say", as well as the part stating that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In said speech, Foster clearly stated that she had come out earlier. It is not possible for a non-LGBT person to come out because of the very definition of the expression. It's like quoting someone stating they had been a victim of anti-Semitic attacks because of their heritage, but claiming that person is not Jewish because they never used the word "Jewish". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality is not like religion. You can come out as a bisexual, gay/lesbian, transexual, and many other sexualities that exist. It is not as "he was a victim of anti-Semitic attacks [therefore he is Jew by default]", and this is what you don't want to understand, and even you contracted yourself: speculation about her sexuality here with assertion of her sexuality here. WP:TPO is clear: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed ... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments [are] Remov[al of] prohibited material such as libel [or] living persons [policies violations]". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many other sexualities exist? Please, do not include sexual deviations, as they are irrelevant. LGBT includes all sexualities that are not straight. The diffs you brought up to allegedly show that I "contracted" [sic] myself are another example of your lack of understanding: I said that she is either gay or bi, both of which are acceptable under the definition of coming out. So yes, to reiterate my previous comment here: it is not possible for a non-LGBT person to come out. This is why the LGBT category needs to be added. If you want, we can reach a compromise and end this travesty right now. Here is my proposed wording:

Foster's speech during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony was widely reported as her coming out.^[1]^[2]^[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hearfourmewesique (talk • contribs)

The other non-LGBT sexualities are: Asexual, pansexual, queer, intersexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, transvestite or transexual, and all of them are not covered complety by the "LGBT" term (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), and the category Category:LGBT actors requires "actors who are, or are known to have been, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender." Also, WP:BLPCAT requires that "Categories regarding ... sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the ... orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." At the moment Foster joked "I am... single" she could easily said "I am [insert sexuality here]", but she didn't and she had her reasons to not say it. Foster "came out 1,000 years ago", "came out" does not mean "come out the closet" by default, it means multiple things, and there are several articles that don't say "Jodie Foster is lesbian", just say "she came out", and some others say "she came out, lesbian or bisexual who cares?",[17][18][19][20][21][22] because she never said "I'm lesbian", and you are blatanty saying that because she "came out" and she is "dating a woman" the result is that she is "lesbian" automatically; that's defamation, and I already told you what happens when secondary references write defamatory articles.

Let's analyse your editing about this and in general. At Jodie Foster, you said:

"Talk is pretty clear about her being confirmed as gay". This edit is a blatant violation of the BLP policy alone. It was an unsourced addition of contentious content about a living person. Also, talk was "pretty clear" she never confirmed that, that's your point of view.
"There is no reason whatsoever to tiptoe around the subject. Also, three more good sources." A violation of a consensus to exclude this information, despite the fact you already knew there was a consensus to exclude. You cited three references HP, Reuters and NYT, the last one is the only reference that never says "she is lesbian", the question is where the HP and Reuters got that information if she never said it? I can't believe this is more neutral and objective than HP and Reuters.
"Do not remove sourced information. It's been discussed on the talk page, and there are multiple sources, including Foster herself, that back this up.", can you explain where "Foster herself" said "I'm a lesbian actress"? None of your references "back this up"
You said above and in the article "Foster's speech during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony was widely reported as her coming out". Apparently you haven't cared to read the article because if you had done it you would have noticed you are adding redundant content:[23] "Foster publicly came out during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony.[67][68][69] She broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[70][71] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation..." First, you are adding content that it was already there, second, you are removing a logical order to the paragraph: "she came out in 2013, she dated a woman for 15 years, she came out in 2013", what's the sense of doing that?

At Talk:Jodie Foster, you said.

"Golden Globes and homosexuality... again?" and "After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality." Just two of your references say "gay/lesbian", can you explain how if her "homosexuality" is "well established", there are several references that doesn't say that she "came out as lesbian"? Also said "Please state a valid reason", the consensus to exclude was the valid reason.
"Per WP:TPO, stop editing my comments. I'm not reinserting the info into the article (for now), so please be as respectful to me as I am to you. Gotta go now, will pick this up later." AS I explained above WP:TPO even says that we can edit or even remove your comments regardless how "disrespectful" the action is, especially if this is poorly sourced.
"Again, per WP:TPO, please do not touch other editors' comments. Thanks" Template:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
"Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual..." I thought her sexuality was "well established" according to you; "but that would also put her in the LGBT category", not if she is "asexual" or "heteroflexible"

Here at BLPN:

"It's like quoting someone stating they had been a victim of anti-Semitic attacks because of their heritage, but claiming that person is not Jewish because they never used the word "Jewish"." Do you know how many times I've been attacked for being Catholic, even when I'm not Catholic? Many times and it is just because I'm Mexican, he comes from Mexico, Mexico is a Catholic country, therefore, he is Catholic. [According to your logic, if the NYT calls me "Catholic", therefore I'm Catholic.

Your own background

This mixed with this just equals that you don't want to include the information because the article "needs it" (if it was "necessary" it'd be there since January), but because you find necessary to edit-war with others, and it doesn't matter if you are blocked or you attack others, the important thing is win. Anna has told you, many times in that chat alone, "walk away", "step back", because even Anna may know that this is enough to "exclude" your edits, and that considering your block log, any admin can block you at any moment. She said so perfectly "What does that leave you with? Millions of articles." There are millions of articles in which you can contribute, but you are now engaged with this particular article in which you have to reverse two community consensus that clearly say "exclude" to include your information, isn't be easier for anyone and for the article to exclude the information? It will survive even if the info is not added, and its exclusion won't "imply that she is straight". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lordy, you actually went there. Even going as far as personal attacks: "you don't want to include the information because the article "needs it" (...), but because you find necessary to edit-war with others, and it doesn't matter if you are blocked or you attack others, the important thing is win." In case you haven't figured out, I am passionate about my edits, and my sometimes trigger happy persona has gotten me in trouble several times, but that has no bearing on the validity of my intentions, which you have absolutely no right to speculate on, let alone excrete those hideous accusations at me. But hey, thanks for digging in my sewer pipes to find all the material you needed to disqualify your opponent, because "all is fair on Wikipedia". For the record, I never suggested, for example, that you would be better off editing the Spanish language Wikipedia because your comments are full of basic grammatical errors... so in terms of civility, I think I've been the better person so far.

Nevertheless... this is getting too long. I gotta be honest, even though I'm pretty sure I butted heads with Rusted AutoParts at some point, xe is right on the money with hir claim that "[previous] consensus is bullshit". The editors who support the exclusion are making interpretive claims on Foster's behalf, directly contradicting several sources that have been established as reputable and reliable for a long time. There is also very good reasoning by editors such as Nowyouseeme,Elizium23, Moncrief, and even the IP. There is also the "mantra" that Delicious Carbuncle seems to repeatedly reassert throughout that thread: "consensus does not override policy"... yet when I told you the same exact thing, you rushed to contradict it, yet you were totally complacent when the same argument worked in your favor... I can dig more, but I'll be the better person – again – and keep my points as pertinent to the subject matter as possible, although you're doing your best to lead me into temptation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why do you keep bringing up Tom Cruise? He sued a couple of tabloids for asserting rumors. This is about citing several reputable news agencies, including The Associated Press and Reuters. Therefore, my proposed wording from above is probably the best way to go about it, since we do not assert it as a fact, but as BLP policy instructs us, "simply report what these sources say". So, about that wording, can we reach an agreement here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Astbury

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

A whole lot of contentious nonsense I just hacked away. Reported to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Will take a look. Wifione ^Message 16:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bourdain

Is this [24] Appropriate? I think it violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. I am at 2 RR and I don't want to go any further. I especially find the term 'racist remarks' a bit much. Plus, I would like some outside eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I thought it needed cleaning, but on 2nd thought this doesn't belong (for now)Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the section for a 2nd time, so I'm also at 2RR. Titling the section as "Racist remarks" is IMO a violation of BLP unless we have multiple sources calling those statements racist.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Irvin

Recently, another editor has been attempting to force content into this article which was previously deemed as unsuitable at least two times at this very noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive175#Lloyd_Irvin_(again) for the most recent and lengthy debate.) I'm not exactly sure what recourse is best here but I sure could use the help before this becomes a silly edit war. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon (talk · contribs) nominated for the sin bin (>3RR). Ridiculous... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Kurzon (talk · contribs) for 60 hours (he has a history of 3RR and has been blocked previously) and Buddy23Lee (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, both for edit warring at this article. Giant Snowman 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Nice

Recently, another editor has been attempting to force content into this article which was previously deemed as unsuitable (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Geoffrey_Nice). We are currently in a undo/un-undo/un-un-undo battle. (They have only ever edited this page of Wikipedia, which makes me suspicious as to thier motive). I'm not sure what should be done at this point. Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Von Glinow, Kiki (January 13, 2013). "Jodie Foster Gay: Actress Comes Out At Golden Globes 2013". The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2013.
^ Sinha-Roy, Piya and Milliken, Mary (editing by Boyle, John) (January 14, 2013). "Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes". Reuters. Retrieved October 27, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Petrow, Steven (January 22, 2013). "Was Jodie Foster's 'Coming Out' a Step Backward for Gays and Lesbians?". The New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2013.

[huf-1] Von Glinow, Kiki (January 13, 2013). "Jodie Foster Gay: Actress Comes Out At Golden Globes 2013". The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2013.

[reu-2] Sinha-Roy, Piya and Milliken, Mary (editing by Boyle, John) (January 14, 2013). "Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes". Reuters. Retrieved October 27, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[nyt-3] Petrow, Steven (January 22, 2013). "Was Jodie Foster's 'Coming Out' a Step Backward for Gays and Lesbians?". The New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 415: / Line 415: @@
 {{od|6}}Oh Lordy, you actually went there. Even going as far as personal attacks: ''"you don't want to include the information because the article "needs it" (...), but because you find necessary to edit-war with others, and it doesn't matter if you are blocked or you attack others, the important thing is win."'' In case you haven't figured out, I am passionate about my edits, and my sometimes trigger happy persona has gotten me in trouble several times, but that has no bearing on the validity of my intentions, which you have absolutely no right to speculate on, let alone excrete those hideous accusations at me. But hey, thanks for digging in my sewer pipes to find all the material you needed to disqualify your opponent, because "[[John Lyly|all is fair on Wikipedia]]". For the record, I never suggested, for example, that you would be better off editing the Spanish language Wikipedia because your comments are full of basic grammatical errors... so in terms of civility, I think I've been the better person so far.
-Nevertheless... this is getting too long. I gotta be honest, even though I'm pretty sure I butted heads with {{U|Rusted AutoParts}} at some point, xe is right on the money with hir claim that ''"[previous] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=535873197&oldid=534871052 consensus is bullshit]"''. The editors who support the exclusion are making interpretive claims on Foster's behalf, directly contradicting several sources that have been established as reputable and reliable for a long time. There is also very good reasoning by editors such as {{U|Nowyouseeme}},{{U|Elizium23}}, {{U|Moncrief}}, and even the IP. There is also the "karma" that Delicious Carbuncle seems to repeatedly reassert throughout that thread: ''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=535952320&oldid=535950599 consensus does not override policy]"''... yet when I told you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=578975599&oldid=578935265 the same exact thing], you rushed to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=579028779&oldid=578976165 contradict] it, yet you were totally complacent when the same argument worked in '''your''' favor... I can dig more, but I'll be the better person &ndash; again &ndash; and keep my points as pertinent to the subject matter as possible, although you're doing your best to [[WP:BAIT|lead me into temptation]]. [[User:Hearfourmewesique|Hearfourmewesique]] ([[User talk:Hearfourmewesique|talk]]) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
+Nevertheless... this is getting too long. I gotta be honest, even though I'm pretty sure I butted heads with {{U|Rusted AutoParts}} at some point, xe is right on the money with hir claim that ''"[previous] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=535873197&oldid=534871052 consensus is bullshit]"''. The editors who support the exclusion are making interpretive claims on Foster's behalf, directly contradicting several sources that have been established as reputable and reliable for a long time. There is also very good reasoning by editors such as {{U|Nowyouseeme}},{{U|Elizium23}}, {{U|Moncrief}}, and even the IP. There is also the "mantra" that Delicious Carbuncle seems to repeatedly reassert throughout that thread: ''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=535952320&oldid=535950599 consensus does not override policy]"''... yet when I told you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=578975599&oldid=578935265 the same exact thing], you rushed to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Foster&diff=579028779&oldid=578976165 contradict] it, yet you were totally complacent when the same argument worked in '''your''' favor... I can dig more, but I'll be the better person &ndash; again &ndash; and keep my points as pertinent to the subject matter as possible, although you're doing your best to [[WP:BAIT|lead me into temptation]]. [[User:Hearfourmewesique|Hearfourmewesique]] ([[User talk:Hearfourmewesique|talk]]) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Comment:''' Why do you keep bringing up [[Tom Cruise]]? He sued a couple of [[tabloid journalism|tabloids]] for asserting rumors. This is about citing '''several reputable news agencies''', including [[The Associated Press]] and [[Reuters]]. Therefore, my proposed wording from above is probably the best way to go about it, since we do not assert it as a fact, but as BLP policy instructs us, ''"simply report what these sources say"''. So, about that wording, can we reach an agreement here? [[User:Hearfourmewesique|Hearfourmewesique]] ([[User talk:Hearfourmewesique|talk]]) 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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