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.

Norman Pender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr Pender, a former Scotland prop forward [1], has been found guilty of sexually abusing girls. [2] [3] [4]

The article needs expanding to include more details to add balance. I also assume that this needs more eyes, as it's the sort of thing that internet vigilantes like to vigilante upon.

update Auric has said Mr Pender was found guilty of rape. He wasn't - the rape charge was found to be "not proven" under Scots law. He was "only" found guilty of lesser charges.

This still hasn't been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.236.245 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified the verdict. Thanks for this.--Auric talk 13:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott Rasmussen

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

---

I'd like some new eyeballs on Scott Rasmussen to contribute to a determination concerning the material highlighted in yellow. Here's a diff of the most recent edit [5] (it's been re-added more than once).

Personal life Rasmussen lives in Ocean Grove, New Jersey with his wife Laura. From 2006–2011, Rasmussen served as volunteer president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), "a ministry organization whose mission is to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal in a Christian seaside setting." OGCMA is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. In 2007, in his capacity as president of OGCMA, Rasmussen denied the request of a local lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony on a boardwalk pavilion owned by OGCMA because the United Methodist Church "recognizes marriage only in terms of a covenant relationship between one man and one woman." A complaint was filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. In 2012, an administrative judge ruled that the OGCMA was not legally allowed to deny the couple's request for a permit, but imposed no penalties as the organization had not "acted with ill motive."

Roccodrift (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced and arguably relevant to the biography of a significant public/political figure. Editorially, one could question it but I certainly don't think it violates any policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it possible that his notability is unrelated to being president of a community organisation (which is the de facto governing body for the community) at all ... and since the judge ascribed nothing personal whatsoever to his actions, but noted it was the organization's rules involved, it is remotely possible that the material is actually unrelated to Rasmussen personally. Collect (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly "unrelated" to discuss a legal case involving an organization a person was president of at the time of the legal case, if that person was discussed in reliable sources relating to the case. The question is an editorial one - is it significant enough to merit inclusion in his biography? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the coverage in the media shows it was significant enough to merit some space. Right now, it's about as small as it can get while still making sense. MilesMoney (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It likely belongs in the organisation's article -- but is of dubious relevance to the notability of the living person here. As such, it requires a clear consensus for inclusion on the BLP talk page. Collect (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Collect, but that's not an accurate description of how Wikipedia works. MilesMoney (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Monty Python Argument Sketch time. All I do is try to follow policies, and not simply gainsay everything everyone else says. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Except the policies you speak of don't say what you seem to think they do. Please read them again. MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You're both under arrest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of policies and following policies... Miles, how do you justify keeping this content in Rasmussen's BLP in light of this rather clear directive from WP:BLP?

"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis in original.)

If we take out the NJAG source (which we are required to do), there isn't a lot left to argue about. Roccodrift (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for improving sources. We should add http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html and http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/10/lesbian_couple_discriminated_against_by_ocean_grove_association_state_says.html. What's especially nice is that the first lets us put back a simplified version of the sentence about the second lesbian couple. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Sources which do not even mention the subject of a BLP are unlikely to be usable in making claims specifically about the subject of the BLP Is that clear enough finally??? Collect (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which source doesn't mention him? MilesMoney (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a more detailed look at the sources here and searched for others, I'm in agreement that, for editorial reasons, there aren't sufficient reliable, independent sources discussing this in the context of Rasmussen's life for it to be included in his biography, as opposed to a page about OGCMA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We have exactly zero reliably sourced information about the subject's personal opinion on the matter; only the information he conveyed as an executive of the organization involved. For all we know, he might have opposed that position internally. Also, quite importantly note that the cited ruling from the Attorney General's office says that Rasmussen's organization won the case, and does not contain the quoted language. It's therefore an outright BLP violation and I'm going to remove it as such. Apparently there is more than one case, or more than one ruling involved, and however it turned out, the content at issue is either incorrect or improperly referenced, and certainly shouldn't be included in a BLP in the current form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two cases, and you misread. They lost the case that went to court. They also decided to refuse all weddings, so the second case was blocked. In short, you really messed up when you whitewashed the article. Merry Christmas and read WP:COMPETENT. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's inaccurate and uncivil. The only relevant reference is a ruling that says the organization won its case, and does not include the quoted language it is cited for. There is no way the disputed text can be included in a BLP. And, at this point, four editors here oppose inclusion of the disputed content; only you support it, so it stays out absent consensus to include it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither source mentions Rasmussen, so I don't see how we can use the NJ.com ones to support the claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I added text that is supported by the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"According to the complaint, the association’s president, Scott Rasmussen, told the couple that while the association allows its facilities to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit them to be used for civil union ceremonies."[6] Please read the The New York Times reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to omit any reference to the only referenced material about the outcome of the case, which indicates his organization won? That's preposterous! In any event, this is contentious, disputed BLP content, and per policy should not be included until consensus is achieved - and right now, the majority of commenting editors oppose inclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

According to which reliable source indicated his organization won? What do you propose with what reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference #5 in the boxed text above, "Finding of No Probable Cause," which in its concluding paragraph states "there is no probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint". That reference was quite bizarrely used in the original version of the disputed text to support the claim that the complaint was upheld, which was what drew my attention here initially. Until all this can be straightened out, an accurate account of events written, and consensus is achieved that Rasmussen's role in the events justifies its inclusion in the article, it should not be included. This is basic application of BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, why include this "material" at all? Also, this minor "story" now takes up 3/4 of the subject's personal life section? --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agee; I believe the material shouldn't be included,and the sentiment here run in that direction by a substantial margin. Unfortunately, there's a determined, disruptive user involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a primary source. I have a secondary source.

"A state agency concluded Tuesday that an Ocean Grove association discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying their application to hold a civil union ceremony at its boardwalk pavilion."[7] Do you see now that they violated the state Law Against Discrimination. QuackGuru (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wolfowitz, I'm not trying to be cruel, but you haven't shown any understanding of the sources, and you've edit-warred to the point of being at 3RR. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a legitimate question of WP:UNDUE emphasis. Ocean Grove is an interesting NJ shore town stuck in the 19th century. It is a dry town (no alcohol is sold or served) and while recently gentrified it sill is dominated by the Methodist establishment which Rasmussen headed for six years. There were many controversies during his tenure including covering up the big cross when the Great Auditorium is used for the local high school graduation. [8] All of this should be in other articles, for sure. It would seem appropriate to have a brief reference in his bio to his six years as head the "Meeting Association" with wikilinks to the articles the cover the controversies in depth. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That source fails to mention Ramussen. Even if it did, it would still not be suitable as others have already pointed out because no source establishes that Ramussen was the primary agent responsible for this decision. Furthermore MilesMoney should be banned from every BLP article, as his willful disregard for BLP policy and bickering on the talk pages is like pouring gas on a fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

* FYI – A discussion regarding User:MilesMoney & a proposed ban on BLPs has been underway at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue? We're talking taking a medium-sized article and adding 3 sentences, 2 of them short. We can tighten it up to 2 sentences, the first explaining the situation and the second summarizing the resolution. Given that he was president of the association and is quoted in various articles, we're not exactly synthesizing anything. Given the wealth of sources, including the court documents, there's absolutely no question of BLP.

The only thing undue is the viciousness of the opposition to this brief, reasonable mention of Scott's brush with fame. Between the edit-warring and the calls for topic bans, it's completely over the top! MilesMoney (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to two sentences about the court case? MilesMoney (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This was already discussed, and rejected. Unless there is something new to consider, I don't think there's much more to talk about. Roccodrift (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. There was agreement that our sources are strong enough to avoid any BLP violation and then a lot of dithering over how much to say. I would suggest closing down the BLPN report because BLP isn't the issue, and instead moving the discussion of how much coverage is due back to the talk page.

Please be more careful not to inaccurately summarize conclusions in a biased manner. It is counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/24weeknj.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1& - Discusses incident, including Rasmussen's role as president and his statement in support of the church.
• http://search.nj.com/ocean+grove+lesbian/ returns extensive coverage of the incident by nj.com, with articles and newsblogs (both of which are reliable). For example, http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2007/09/gays_welcome_if_they_know_thei.html has some positive things to say about Rasmussen's actions, while http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html provides a nice summary of how the case concluded.
• We also have links to primary sources, such as court documents, just in case anyone doubts the accuracy of these secondary news sources.

I believe that these sources are reliable for what we say in the article, and are more than enough to allay any fears of BLP violation. If you disagree, please explain yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the sources being presented is that most of them don't mention Rasmussen at all. The ones that do mention him in one sentence (like the NY Times source) and fail to establish his primacy, or even substantial involvement in this event. This brings up questions about undue inclusion, coatrack, and synthesis. If we remove the court document, which I've learned isn't an appropriate source here, we just don't have enough reliable secondary sources specifically discussing his involvement. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

His involvement is that he was the president of the organization that was sued, and he's quoted and paraphrased making various statements in support of the policies that were ruled discriminatory.

The fact that multiple reliable sources include him means that there's no truth to any claims of synthesis. The fact that it's two sentences makes it hard to claim it's undue or coatrack while keeping a straight face. These policies simply do not say what you want them to. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, why don't you propose a specific content addition to the article, with recommended sourcing, on the article's talk page? We can then reach consensus there. I'm sorry you don't believe I can keep a straight face while discussing these matters. I've been civil & collegial with you, trying to work together to improve the encyclopedia. It would be great if you'd return the favor. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just negative fodder and less than a tiny aspect in the subject's life. I've seen very little persuasive argument for it's inclusion.--MONGO 12:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MONGO, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may not be aware of this, but Wikipedia policy does not support the exclusion of well-supported material simply on the basis that it's "negative". For one thing, it would be impossible to define because it's subjective: to some, Rasmussen's stand against the homosexual agenda is heroic. For another, it would violate WP:NPOV, which requires us to reflect the balance of our sources. On Wikipedia, sources are very important!

This page is called WP:BLPN because it's for getting more feedback about potential issues regarding biographies of living people. The goal is to avoid libel, not to paint a rosy or otherwise one-sided picture of everything. If you believe that including a few sentences on this widely-covered incident would be counter to policy, you are encouraged to bring up the specific policy that you believe is relevant. You are politely discouraged from making up policy ("no negs") to support your personal feelings. Thank you and -- once again -- welcome! MilesMoney (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I was doing BLP enforcement before it was even policy. You're completely backwards as to how the policy works.--MONGO 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's good to know! When you're done beating on your chest, perhaps you could quote the specific policy that supports your "no negs" theory. It is supported by a specific policy, right? I mean, you didn't just make it up, did you?

Gripping the edge of my seat in anticipation. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't type that I believe in no negatives. I have repeatedly stated that BLP is about doing no harm, and if something negative is in a BLP it needs to adhere to policies about UNDUE and be exceptionally well sourced. Your additions do not improve the encyclopedic integrity of the bio in question, are misleading and accusatory.--MONGO 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You say this needs to be exceptionally sourced, then you act as if the New York Times doesn't qualify. You say you're not claiming negatives should be removed, then you talk about how negative this incident is. You bring up policies like BLP and UNDUE, but you can't quote any part that's relevant. You seem to be making this stuff up instead of following policy.

There is no harm in repeating what the New York Times already printed. It's true, it's sourced, it's relevant. You don't have to like it, but there's no policy that supports you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We strive to be better than a newspaper only after headlines. Your addition is a violation of UNDUE, and just because something can be referenced doesnt mean it belongs in a BLP.--MONGO 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times was not wrong to quote the president of the organization that refused to rent the pavilion. We are not wrong to follow its lead. If you read WP:UNDUE, instead of just naming it, you will find nothing to support your view. The incident is important enough to Ocean Grove that we give it a section with a few paragraphs. It's important enough to Rasmussen that we need to give him two or three sentences in the appropriate section. We have everything from high-quality secondary sources to original court documents, so sourcing and BLP violation are not issues. MilesMoney (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Times article cited does not quote Rasmussen, this argument is nonsense. WP:V is policy; WP:BLP is policy, and neither allows us to present unverified claims as established facts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Times paraphrased him with attribution, which is a distinction that makes no difference. There are absolutely no unverified claims involved; you are completely mistaken. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are dead wrong. The Times paraphrased a statement in the complaint, and was careful not to present the supposed statement as established fact. Therefore, it cannot be presented in this BLP as established fact. That is a basic application of BLP policy, not to mention WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See, now you're just making stuff up. There is nothing controversial about the statement; everyone agrees that Rasmussen made it. Please stop wasting my time with policies that do not exist. MilesMoney (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced "everyone agrees" hardly satisfies our BLP policy. Quotes (direct or indirect) must be verifiable; those sourced only to a complaint in a legal case fail that test. Again, basic BLP policy, which exists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is the source. Your argument ignores sources. MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Provide an actual quotation from the cited Times article that states as fact that Rasmussen said what you want the article to say he said. Not a statement that an opposing party in litigation claims he said it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

According to the complaint, the association’s president, Scott Rasmussen, told the couple that while the association allows its facilities to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit them to be used for civil union ceremonies.

This was never disputed, and the court ruling confirms it (as well as the fact that it was a violation of the law). MilesMoney (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note the verbiage "According to the complaint". NYT is simply reporting that the claim was made by an opposing party in litigation. The NYT didn't report it as fact, and we have no source to back the assertion that it was never disputed. Roccodrift (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a source saying it was disputed, you can overrule the New York Times. But the court documents make it clear that the church never disputed that they refused to allow the wedding. Rather, their argument was that it was legal for them to do so. The court did not agree, however. MilesMoney (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The BLP problem I see in this is that the phrasing now tends to imply that Rassmussen was supposed to use (or at least was at liberty to use) his personal discretion rather than act as an agent of the organization (and by extension of their reasoning at the time, the UMC). I'm not utterly opposed to mention of why his presidency of OGCMA caught people's attention, but the current phrasing implies a level of personal responsibility which is not a neutral POV. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all relevant to this man's biography; Rasmussen is mentioned in passing as the organizations president if he is mentioned at all. Worth a mention in the town's article and at Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association if the org itself ever satisfies the project's notability requirements to become a standalone article, but that is the extent of it. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So Miles gives quote above, here is were that comes from "The New York Times UNDUE? The Week in Jersey Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and others have put their finger on the sore spot: the NYT article reports (reliably) that a complaint alleged something about the subject. That's not enough to make it into a statement about the person, without any "alleged" in there. The material should be kept out. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Moreso; the incident and complaint is apparently not notable enough for an article on it; the Reverend who runs the organization has no biography; the organization has no article on it. UNDUE is entirely relevant. If this incident were seen as a seminal incident in gay rights, having extensive independent reliable media and critical coverage, and articles on all aspects of it here in WP, we could rightly reflect that in the bio. Lacking any of that other coverage, lacking any other notation in the Rasmussen article as to his being notable for anti-gay-rights activity or commentary, the basis for including is very weak. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

George, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on the facts. The OGCMA is synonymous with Ocean_Grove, New_Jersey, which is why it takes up a Grove, New Jersey#Ocean_Grove_Camp_Meeting_Association over a third of the article, about 1800 words. This is so large that it could reasonably be forked out. The coverage of the pavilion incident is sloppy and inadequate, but it's still over 500 words long, which nearly a third of the entire OGCMA section. If it were covered adequately - something I've considered doing -- then it would need to be forked out.

As for the incident, there is "extensive independent reliable media and critical coverage". It went national and even got coverage in my home town of Toronto. Our sources put him at the front and center of the incident, acting as president of OCGMA and personally refusing to allow the couple to use the pavilion. I see no reason why it might be undue to give this a sentence or two in Scott Rasmussen, as this is precisely the sort of detail that adds value to an article.

Also, please don't claim he's politically neutral. He's a political pollster known for favoring a particular party, the same party that happens to oppose gay rights in America. I don't want to draw any connections in the article -- that would be WP:SYNTH -- but let's not pretend he's just Joe Public going about his personal life.

Look, this has to come down to the facts, and if you don't know the facts, then you're entitled to your opinion, but nobody should listen to you. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First - You are borderline personal attacking an uninvolved administrator commenting on a public noticeboard. This is not a smart career move.

Second - A wikilink there would have been nice at the start of the discussion and in the biographical article so that those of us coming into this could actually find all relevant information easily and review it conveniently.

Third - You are asserting extensive facts not put into evidence, in the form of alleged national media coverage of the incident. I count five sources - four local to New Jersey and the NY Times local events column, plus two primary sources to the NJ official record. Without questioning your honesty or integrity, please provide citations to more widespread national coverage.

Fourth - Regarding his politics, any rational observer can see what he himself claims his political beliefs are, and that is in accord with the coverage here. His conservatism is not in question. It is however WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to draw a connecting line between someone being politically conservative or a US Republican and them being anti-gay-rights or anti-gay-marriage. Support for gay marriage is exceeding 50% among Republicans in the 18-49 age range [9]. I certainly believe it's possible he opposes gay marriage or gay rights; this incident would suggest so to at least some degree. But WP:CN. Sources, evidence, reliable third party coverage of that opinion.

Fifth - Again, the reason we are here is that this is a BLP article. BLPs are handled more carefully. You are not handling this more carefully. You are attempting to tag this guy as anti-gay by including this information. That is clear and evident from the long long sordid history of your edits. It is possible you are correct in that, but it being a BLP means you have to show your work and reliable sources and be extra careful with neutrality. You are transparently well past that point here. You're not being nearly as careful as you think or assert you are. I strongly urge you to back off and let other, uninvolved editors review the situation. If you can provide citations for the issues I noted above feel free to contribute them, but your editing in this is no longer safe or neutral. Please back out of the content area. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Point by point:

• You are not uninvolved. I remember how you urged MONGO to file a spurious SPI against me in an attempt to get me indef'ed. You're allowed to do that, but you can't claim afterwards to be neutral. Pretending to be neutral is a bad career move for admins.
• A wikilink might have been nice, but slipped my mind since it was discussed extensively on the article talk page, of which this is a continuation. Anyhow, now you've seen it.
• NPR covered it here. If I understand correctly, the "N" stands for "National".
• As I said, "I don't want to draw any connections in the article". I bring it up only to refute what you said about him not being notable for political views.
• The "attempting to tag this guy as anti-gay" thing is false, but it does explain why the Conservative Cloud has come down like a fog bank. They're afraid that someone might infer such a thing -- although I've explicitly stated that we shouldn't say it -- and that's why they're claiming that the NY Daily News isn't a reliable source. Look for yourself at the proposed material and you'll see that it's both neutral and highly compliant to our sources.

That's it. MilesMoney (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I note with amusement that NPR also does not mention Rasmussen. Roccodrift (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not every source does. However, we only need one source to avoid charges of WP:OR, so this changes nothing. MilesMoney (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, remember that verifiability isn't the only criterion for inclusion - if you have only one source, it will probably be undue weight. StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research is, however, sufficient for exclusion, so we absolutely must have a source that makes it clear how Rasmussen is connected, allowing us to avoid making the connection ourselves. As for undue weight, we're still talking about 2, maybe 3, sentences that mention the incident and link to the large section of the Ocean Grove article that has deeper coverage. MilesMoney (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who you're talking about when you say "we're still taking" about 2 or 3 sentences. There are now no less than 15 editors who have expressed opposition to including this material in Rasmussen's bio. This was a dead letter two days ago, when there were only 5 in opposition. Consensus is mounting for exclusion, and it is unlikely there will be any mention of the event at all once the article is out of protection. Roccodrift (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not involved in any sense that WP policy cares about - administrator interest in your activity is not involvement. I am not editing content on any pages you edit, and have not been engaged in conflict with you on talk pages or noticeboards. The SPI was related to behavioral review, which is ongoing.

Regarding the link - this is a noticeboard. Admins and editors not involved in the talk page discussion are going to join here. Assuming we can suss out every detail from every post and link in the talk page and extensive edit warring is unwise. But, that said, yes, I have seen the link now.

As noted by Roccodrift, the NPR source you listed does not include the person whose name you're trying to use it to support. You are clearly violating WP:SYNTH of sources to claim his participation was notable enough for widespread coverage, given sources you have provided so far.

I am not saying he's not notable for political views. He's a political commentator and author. Of course he is. That's obvious and does not need any further discussion. I am saying I haven't found any reliable source claiming he's notable for any anti-gay activity, in some quick poking around, other than this one incident which does not seem to have risen to the level of national notability.

The incident is not important enough to include in the bio as part of his life, as evidence has been presented so far. You are absolutely committing WP:SYNTH here and substituting your own opinion for reliable, independent third-party sourcing with secondary sources supporting the significance of what you want to include. (I do not exclude the possible existence of such sources, but haven't seen them included yet in discussion).

If his political or personal views on gay rights or marriage were exposed by this in such a way as to garner widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources on a national level, this would absolutely be appropriate in the article. The mere fact that it happened, absent any interpretative or contextual sourcing tying him in more clearly or exposing his beliefs, is not good enough.

This is not about some imagined Conservative Cloud. I am pro gay marriage, personally, and it's something I believe to be of note in current affairs which is relevant to include in biographies of notable actively outspoken for-and-against personalities, commentators, figures. You are not providing sources that make the case that this biography is about such a person. This is absolutely fundamentally what WP:BLP is all about. You have to substantiate the relevance.

Your weasel-worded "They're afraid that someone might infer such a thing -- although I've explicitly stated that we shouldn't say it --" is missing the point. It's only relevant to the article if it's not just inferrable - if it's notable, cited, sourced, etc.

I don't agree that we've established reliable sourcing including both primary and secondary sources as to the event having happened, and consistent agreement on the facts. But the relevance to the bio is unsupported. Support it, or back away from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again:

• For the purpose of understanding your motivation, you are not neutral, you're hostile. While I will keep my temper, I won't overlook this fact and I will not allow the initial assumption of good faith to blind me to incidences of apparent bad faith.
• Speaking of which, I don't take kindly to how you moved the goalposts. First, you ask for "national media coverage of the incident". When I provide this, you shift to demanding articles showing that "his participation was notable enough for widespread coverage". Did you think I wouldn't notice?
• National coverage isn't necessary for inclusion, but it's sufficient for establishing notability. The key is that the NPR article is not being combined with anything to create a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the source", as SYNTH violation requires. You may be an admin, but you can't expect to throw around [[WP:TLA]]'s without having them checked for applicability.
• As I've said a few times now, the proposed material does not accuse him of being anti-gay or whatever. At most, it shows that he was the head of and spokesman for an organization that broke the law in NJ by discriminating against gays. This is an unquestionable fact, and is sourced more than adequately to rule out any risk of BLP violation. NPOV does not allow us to censor simply because it might be considered negative.
• In fact, one of our sources quotes or paraphrases him as explicitly saying that he is not biased against gays and another (a primary court document) says that there did not appear to be any intent. I'd be fine with including mention of either or both of these facts, even if it forces us to swell the material to a 4th sentence. NPOV is key, again.
• Do you actually have an argument for exclusion? It can't be WP:UNDUE, because it's such a small part of the article. We know it's not WP:BLP, because the facts are fully established. It's not WP:RS, unless you think NPR is a tabloid rag. What do you actually have? WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

MilesMoney (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles continues to overlook the single best argument for exclusion: 15 other editors say to exclude it. Sources don't matter. Notability doesn't matter. National coverage doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, Miles. The community has spoken. Stop the WP:FILIBUSTER and just accept that this material won't be in the article. Roccodrift (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any mention of this trivial story in Rasmussen 's bio runs afoul of WP:UNDUE as far as I'm concerned, so resting the argument on that one alone will suffice. The NPR piece does not mention Rasmussen at all, and the NY Times "this week in New Jersey" blurb contains a single name-drop. This is simply not a significant or notable event in this man's biography, and thus it will not be appearing in his article. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that GWH's fear-mongering about making Rasmussen look like a bigot, while wrong, does reveal that he doesn't see this story as "trivial". So, is it trivial or do you just not want it because you are trying to violate WP:NPOV by keeping his bio lily white? Even with AGF, I have to ask. MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you actually said there really has anything to do with my argument, unfortunately. This project functions by consensus, and the consensus has come down squarely against your and your opinion on this matter, is where we're at right now. Tarc (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• The yellow text is UNDUE twaddle. Apart from what has been explained, the president of an organization is more or less compelled to follow directions from that organization, and it is pure WP:SYNTH to decorate the subject's article with such a cherry-picked attack. I see that Georgewilliamherbert has been reprimanded for offering an opinion on a noticeboard, so I had better reveal that I have encountered MM before—in this diff we see negative commentary inserted into a heading on a BLP (and repeated). Both cases seem to be using Wikipedia to attack a person for making some unfavorable LGBT comment. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, if I were president of the org and ordered to do something illegal and immoral, I would refuse. If this was unacceptable to the org, I would resign over it. Scott did neither; he supported the org to the very end, even after it lost the court case. So, no, you can't claim that its unfair to mention this issue because his hands were tied. Nobody tied his hands; he chose to be president, he chose to support the views of the org, and he chose to remain president. It was voluntary all along.

Note how your concerns completely refute the idea that it's "trivial". Thanks! MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You would do this, he chose that, what I said proves something—such comments demonstrate profound misunderstandings about Wikipedia, yet I can see how the many forums discussing MM have failed to achieve anything. How could the community eject someone merely for enthusiastically righting great wrongs? Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you keep trying to make my proposal seem radical, when all I want is to reflect what our sources say. You ascribe motives to me that exist only in your fevered imagination, violating WP:NPA in the process. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete material. Complete violation of WP:UNDUE. Not even clear it's "Personal life" and certainly insignificant detail of a nature intended to portray his action in a negative light. It's certainly less "personal" than his house burning down and even that's unnecessary/undue weight minutiae that should be deleted. The material in yellow above should nor be re-added to his bio. It's questionable as to whether it's relevant to any article as minutiae coatrack material. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like we have strong consensus against including this material. A simultaneous discussion about inclusion is occurring on the article's talk page. That discussion seems obsolete in light of the consensus reached here. Is there anything else to be said here, or can we close the book on this for now? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're confusing BLP with UNDUE. MilesMoney (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion has been over for more than 24 hours. We have a very strong consensus to exclude. I support archiving. Roccodrift (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, it's apparent there is nothing any number of other editors can do or say to convince you to stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. You have repeatedly refused to accept community consensus. Let's drop it so we can all move on. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. All they have to do is come up with an argument grounded in policy and sources, as opposed to personal distaste. It doesn't matter how many bad arguments I hear; all it takes is one good argument. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're speaking as if you, MilesMoney, are the sole worthy arbiter of what should and should not be on WP. No one has to convince you of anything. The community has reached consensus. You lost. Tough cookies. Me, and many other editors, have made numerous policy arguments here. You may not have liked them, but we've made them. You seem to want to drag this process out until someone convinces you, oh worthy one. You do not have veto power over consensus. This debate has reached its natural end. You can't keep holding it up until its outcome pleases you. That's not how WP works. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was just going to say that Rocco and you imagine that you constitute the community, when you're just the cloud. MilesMoney (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles isn't going to give his permission to close this, so there's no point trying to cajole him into recognizing what the community has decided. Somebody just needs to do it. I can't; I'm the OP. But somebody should. Roccodrift (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, it looks like you've run out of content or policy related comments and have resorted to unrelated ad hominem attacks and strange conspiracy theories ("the cloud...?") Please, just stop. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're projecting, actually. Remember, you were the one who decided you spoke for the community, and you were the one who attacked me with the "sole worthy arbiter" nonsense. The policy issue that remains unsatisfied is the unsupported claim that it would be undue to mention Rasmussen's role in the lesbian pavilion lawsuit. I got an earful of WP:IDHT, but nothing that can support a consensus. Ironically, you act as if I'm obstinate while dragging your feet and refusing to answer. Can you also make bat-shaped shadows with your projector? MilesMoney (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't decide, nor do I think, that I speak for the entire community. What I'm trying to point out here is that 17 editors have come out against including the material at hand, and two editors, including yourself, have supported inclusion. That looks like a strong consensus to me. Do you disagree? Do you believe all 17 editors are part of this "Conservative Cloud" that you believe is chasing you down? A true martyr, you. It does seem like you think the content needs to be included unless you, MilesMoney, decide you don't like it. You won't drop this until you get what you want. You may say what you want is a compelling policy argument. I believe several have been made here. You do not. That's subjective. We can't keep discussing this until you are placated. And what am I refusing to answer? I think I've made my thoughts clear. Most of the sources don't mention Rasmussen; the ones that do mention him in passing. We have no sources stating that Rasmussen was a key player in this incident. We have no sources describing the role of the president of this group. It's undue to include anything about this incident, which, according to our sources, is tangentially related to Rasmussen, at best. It's SYNTH to say "Rasmussen was president," "the association had a complaint filed against it and lost," therefore "Rasmussen was the key decision maker and he personally decided what happened in this situation," etc. That is conjecture, and not supported by sources. No major news source has made a claim that Rasmussen was the key player here. NY Times said he was president, but do we know what authority the president of the group has? We do not. For all we know, the president reports to the trustees or chairman, etc. I've made all these arguments before, so I don't expect you to support them. But the disputed content and sourcing is tenuous, and I sincerely believe it would violate BLP and NPOV policies, among others, to include it. Safehaven86 (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Concepcion Picciotto was born January 15 1936 - not 1945.

I worked with Concepcion Picciotto for many years and helped her sign up for Social Security. Her birthday is January 15 1936 -- not 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.94.197 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The 1945 year was based on an inadequate source and has been removed. In order to insert a different year, we need some published source for it. Can you find one? Zero^talk 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There are reliable sources from this year that suggest she is 77 years old, which would place her year of birth as either 1935 or 1936. [10][11] Hack (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

There are two BLP-relevant issues with this article presently. One is the insertion of a statement in the lede that biologist Jerry Coyne has called the subject a pseudoscientist, although the article notes right before this that his views are considered pseudoscience. It is stated to be a "piece in The New Republic" and the post is indeed on their site, but it was actually a self-published blog post on Coyne's personal blog that has been republished on TNR. There is no questioning that the piece is strongly opinionated and negative in tone, referring to the subject as a "misbehaving woomeister" and using other colorful descriptions of the subject and his ideas. Only alterations were some additional commentary criticizing the subject and one of his supporters and minor changing of one early paragraph to reflect the wider audience, who are not as likely to know the suject as would be the readers of his blog. In a follow-up piece TNR explicitly say they simply "republished a highly-critical blogpost" and there is no indication given that the piece was subject to the regular editorial policies. I argued that this should be removed per WP:BLPSPS, but in subsequent discussion a few editors insisted that the mere act of being republished by TNR meant it was now acceptable to use in a BLP for this purpose. My impression is that this is a bit like exploiting a loophole as the post is not substantively different from the original, which would have been unacceptable as a self-published source.

Another issue on a finer point is the insistence on describing the subject's views regarding conservation of energy and perpetual motion as questioning facts. Initially arising in this edit where originally it referred to the law of conservation of energy, it had been subsequently restored here, but an editor removed the description entirely to try and resolve it. It was brought back with a slight redo that preserved the essence of the original edit that makes no mention of the subject. At this point another editor noted that the source did not support this description of the subject's view and so I removed it noting it was unsourced. Yet another editor restored it with no specific reason raised and I removed it again, but then introduced some compromise wording. Several days later one of the previous editors made this change, which is different, but has similar intentions. The source, a student newspaper, quotes the subject referring to "laws of nature" and this is used as the basis for stating the subject advocates questioning "what he describes as 'laws of nature'". Although claiming the source supports this, it makes no mention of perpetual motion or conservation of energy and is presented in a way that implies his view of these things is peculiar to him. In fact, conservation of energy is widely known as a law of nature and is referred to as such in the editorial voice in the very piece being cited, no scare quotes as in the edit. The editors supporting it make it clear that these insertions are about communicating "the truth" about the subject and his ideas, quietly acknowledging a lack of explicit support from sources.

I feel in both cases these edits are in violation of BLP policy and should not be allowed in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with the contention that there those of us "quietly acknowledging a lack of explicit support from sources." The sources already in the article do support the text as written, though it seems TDA may have some reading comprehension issues. jps (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything with using Coyne/TNR as a reference for the claim that Sheldrake's ideas are pseudoscientific. The prior publication as a blog entry is irrelevant. I do have an issue with the text which singles out Coyne as though there was something especially notable about his condemnation. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

the second of TDA's complaints is purely specious- the content is NOT BLP to begin with, but Sheldrake himself is a reliable source for the claims about what he says [12] and that is merely the 15 minute condensation of what he says in his most recent book "The Science Delusion" which is entirely about questioning the basic tenants of science because they are "materialistic"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD, claiming that a person says or advocates something is subject to the policy on BLPs. If a person's statements are characterized a certain way and that characterization is not supported by any reliable source, then it is a BLP issue.

@Mangoe, the issue is not saying his views are pseudoscientific but throwing out the label of pseudoscientist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 10:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we're not arguing whether he's a pseudoscientist, we're arguing whether we should describe him as a pseudoscientist in order not to further upset him. I agree there are subtleties here, which isn't helpful when people take entrenched views. My view is that perhaps you are right - we maybe shouldn't describe him as a pseudoscientist, but we should make clear that his core ideas are considered pseudoscience by those who matter (which we do). The word pseudoscientist is only directly linked to one source, albeit a reliable one which is broadly consistent with other sources. The point I have made elsewhere that we shouldn't call him a biologist (because it's not accurate, and pro-POV), means that perhaps we shouldn't call him things like pseudoscientist or crank either (even though they are accurate, it's anti-POV). There are subtleties here, which pro-Sheldrake fans do not seem to be able to appreciate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote this section, and nobody thus far as complained. Can we put this to bed? Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your change is acceptable and I see David in DC has voiced support on the talk page for undoing the other change to the lede that I mentioned. Should that edit also be undone then I would have no issue with closing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume the "other change in the lede that I mentioned" means describing someone not current studying biology using the scientific method as a "current biologist/scientist". This isn't happening, because it obviously isn't accurate, is a pro-FRINGE POV, and fails to explain why he's notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dronamraju Krishna Rao

The personal page is poorly cited and lack evidence except for one article source which is not verifiable. This section should be deleted. Dr. Angel DeCegama (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Dr Angel DeCegama

This matter was subsequently discussed at the article's talk page, and some potentially libelous material was removed from the BLP. So, the BLP issue seems to be taken care of.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert M. Place

Robert M. Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adverts have been added to the Black Magic page for selling his books. He is not a historical figure in the history of Black Magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.168.125 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This IP seems to have removed the material in question from the article about black magic, but may have removed a bit too much. Mr. Place may not be a historical figure, but that does not preclude him from being a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is sourcing issue, not a BLP issue. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right, nothing to do with BLP policy. Place is used as a reference (I added the info from memory) and the content is not promotional in any way. Place is considered a reliable source and is used as a reference in other texts subsequently used as references here. IP seems to misunderstand how Place's work is being referenced as a reliable source in this context. I've reverted to a pre-removal version. Stalwart111 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Acharya S

I initially came across this article via an OTRS complaint. The issue at this page is the inclusion of the author's supposed real name. I reduced the name to initials because I felt that there were no substantial reliable sources for the first name. I was reverted and referred to the talk page (where I should have looked first) and made aware of a recent Request for Comment as well as an older BLP Noticeboard report. I believe that the recent RfC is lacks enough substantial input to be a reliable source of consensus while the older, but more developed and fleshed out, BLP/N post presents (in my eyes at least) no consensus to include the first name. The recent RfC consists mainly of short, terse replies citing aesthetics and semantics based policies without really addressing the sources and BLP. The arguments at the old BLP/N post address the deeper concerns here. -- John Reaves 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:Acharya_S#Delete actual name

The recent RfC began with and specifically referenced the previous (2010) BLP/N discussion, The previous many months discussion have centered around RS for the author's name and appropriate policy. There was significant input into the RfC and consensus. The RfC was closed with the consensus to include the author's full name. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• • As above, the recent RfC began with and specifically referenced the previous BLP/N alongside MOSBIO and WP:FULLNAME. There are four print sources for the authors name of which only 1 is self-published and 1 was actually linked by the author as credentials on their webpage. An invisble comment has been added into the article text to prevent a constant stream of new editors canvassed by OTRS or email from reverting the result of the RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "significant input" at the RfC, that is a bogus claim. It was biased with a predetermined outcome. Linked by the author? Where? And your other sources are not reliable, therefore, they are invalid for making this claim. -- John Reaves 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

John, I'm sorry but you received a personal message, you acted on it without reading the Talk page, you then misread the source you looked at, and now you're asking above a question which s answered in the archive and again on the page. Please WP:AGF. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Predetermined outcome at RfC? Really? How? Global conspiracy to add the author's full name as per RS refs? Simon and Schuster, and two academic sources seemed plenty RS for all the other editors who weighed in on this specific point.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC and the other discussion at BLP/N did not mention WP:BLPNAME: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Acharya has said at [her Facebook Page] that she has been harassed and that the "real name" is wrong. I did not partake in the previous discussions because I was unaware as to why she uses her initials instead of her "real name" until I read her FB page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Being published by well known publisher does not make a book a reliable source. You're other sources are not linked from her wbsite as claimed and are valid anyway as they are primary sources. That leaves one potentially reliable source about a fact that has no bearing on the article. We are talking about someone's name here. The use of a first name has been claimed as unwanted and, in the first place, incorrect by the subject. This a BLP issue and for whatever bizarre reason, you two are grasping at straws to include it. Here are two relevant quotes from the BLP policy:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

— WP:BLPPRIVACY

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. 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.

— WP:BLPPRIMARY

-- John Reaves 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

D.M. Murdock's page http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html is still online, "modern Greek, the latter of which I taught myself while studying in Greece with the Lake Forest College Program under the direction of Professor Emeritus of Religion Rev. Dr. Dan Cole. During that semester abroad, my Greek became good enough that when I answered the phone, people thought I was a Greek boy! " and website of "The American School of Classical Studies at Athens". D. M. Murdock does not now link to the actual url given as source in Xulon Press (i.e. self published) James Patrick Holding Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 - Page 263 Which cites "http://campus.lakeforest.edu/academics/greece/Partic-OtherSchools.html Accessed April 12, 2008. "Acharya S" is a writer's pseudonym, but recently Acharya has publicly reverted to use of her given name, Dorothy Milne Murdock, as it ..."

• Lake Forest College: That source is still online and still lists "Dorothy Milne Murdock: Franklin & Marshall, '82 Classical Studies" although the link has been taken down from the author's website credentials section
• American School of Classical Studies at Athens Annual Report - American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1983 "... Dorothy M. Murdock "

However sources 1-2 where not used in the RFC, source 3 was only referenced as "this is simply a program which the author's website makes mention of http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.html

The RFC was based on only 2 independent reliable sources 4-5:

• Simon & Schuster Lynn Picknett, ‎Clive Prince The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups 2008 "... and other books); “Acharya S.,” or Dorothy M. Murdock (The Christ Conspiracy, 1999); and philosopher and filmmaker Jay Raskin (The Evolution ofChrists and Christianities, 2006). "
• B&H Publishing Group Paul Copan, ‎William Lane Craig Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics - 2012 Page 170 "The basic thesis of this argument is well stated in The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist: Part 1. The book was written by Acharya S, the periodic pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock, who was a primary consultant for the film and whose book, The ..."

If there is interest in a second RFC by all means someone propose one, but the relevant sources are Simon & Schuster and B&H Publishing Group In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Imany

Imany biography clearly written by publicist/P.R 'gems' 'slender and regal', I could go on! Totally subjective and non-encyclopedic.

Check out this full sentence from the wiki page: "Imany’s first album, “Shape Of A Broken Heart”, offers twelve gems written in English and reveals a singular performer. In her sensual, unique voice, pungent ginger melts with the sweetness of honey." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.42.133 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Puffery has been removed by other editors.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Marisa Ingemi

This biographical article was almost assuredly written by the subject themselves. The originating user is "Laxfan16" and the subject was 16 at the time the page was originally created. This is a pretty clear textbook conflict of interest designed to further/promote their own interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.106.22 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently proposed for deletion by User:Thargor Orlando.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashley Spurlin 2

Article references do not exist, this page can no longer exist. Delete as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.205.150.75 (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently taken care of by User:Secret.[14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Columbine

Columbine High School massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think it is not wise to have the names of people who were injured but survived. It ties them to an unfortunate event, and their privacy should be respected. Jcrimers (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If they were minors at the time, and have not sought publicity as adults regarding the matter, then it seems sufficient for the main text of the Wikipedia article to refer to them without including their last names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a policy on this: WP:BLPNAME. Formerip (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, but suppose the name of a survivor has been widely publicized. BLPNAME doesn't explicitly address such a situation, other than saying to exercise caution. My view is that, if the person was a minor, and has not as an adult done anything to stay in the public eye, then putting the full name in the main text of our Wikipedia article is incautious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless they've played a particularly significant and widely discussed role in the event, such as Cassie Bernall, or sought publicity in some way such as writing a memoir, we should err on the side of caution and leave their names out. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dustin Lance Black

Please would experienced BLP editors look at this article and its talk page where various references to a putative male partner have been redacted by me and others as BLP violations. The name of Mr Black's partner has not been released either by him of by his putative partner. Please consider whether the various revisions of the talk page and the article mentioning the putative partner's name require formal suppression of the details. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ryan_Gunderson

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Gunderson appears to be about a person who is not notable and the article contains no references. I added a courtesy 10 day schedule for deletion which was removed by user Dolovis. I believe this article has existed in article space far too long without following the rules of a BLP and should be deleted from article space. Scottsadventure (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just nominate it for WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Is it appropriate to comment on a user pattern on this noticeboard, concerning multiple non referenced BLP's? If not, how is a matter resolved where there appears to be a plethora of BLP articles edited by a single user which are not notable and are all connected to a similar subject matter? A pattern that could be viewed as consistent with that of perhaps a paid editor. Scottsadventure (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

More information on John Cramer, Announcer, born July 3, 1955

While this site might be advertising for booking John, you can grab anything from it. It's all true. It's a little outdated. Seems to be at least as old as 2009 ~ http://www.voices.com/people/johncramer?lang=en ~

Thanks for editing his birth place (removing, actually; words that said he was born in Glendale, CA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.31.0 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Jacobs - Kane

Glenn Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On his page on your list it states World Heavyweight Champion 2008-2011 however this is incorrect as he was not world champion until 2010 and was only ECW champion in 2008 and I have now corrected the page, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.243.74 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of Asian pornographic actors

Adding redlinked names of persons who may be notable porn stars. The alternative of WP:WTAF has been discussed on the article talk page, here, and here. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Nor should any names be added to wikipedia to such a category unless a RS has stated they are an Asian porn actor. Seriously, wtf is wrong with people?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pork, we have that, did you review the list? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the list, invoking BLP♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SqueakBox. Still, I'd like a formal/admin determination that such an addition is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that is necessary, that isnt what admisn are for, they are there to block, for instance, a repeated BLP vio offender and any experienced editor can make this call♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a laundry list of actors who may or may not be WP:NOTABLE. We don't know because they don't have articles (yet). Some of them have been previously deleted, but that doesn't mean that an article that passes WP:BIO won't ever be created. There are references associating each name with the Adult Industry. IMO, BLP has not been violated by the listing of a name on a Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The info hasnt been deleted from wikipedia, you can find it and bookmark it on your computer, as can any other knowledgeable wikipedian given what has been left on the page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, thank you for the earnest effort to mediate. But honestly, I could care less. I was just trying to organize some information that is typically or easily "lost" in the myriad of edits, revisions, and reverts that happen on WP. According to what others have told me, the accusing User has had similar issues with several other Editors. So while its amounted to a waste of time for me, its apparently a pattern. I'm taking the page in question off my Watch List. Best regards --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem to have redlinked names on the talk page, especially if each one is supported by a reference, which is indeed the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bink, I'll give one guess as to where I got the idea. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet is correct. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bink, especially since all of these names are obvious porn-performer pseudonyms, so we're not at risk of identifying regular people as performers. As I said elsewhere, these names are like Long Dong Silver, not Daniel Arthur Mead. MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The only name in the list in the diff at the top of this section that does not appear to be an ordinary name is the one with the last name of "Dynasty". All the rest could easily be the real name of a person. MilesMoney, are you certain you're referring to the same names as the ones being discussed? alanyst 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Pornographic actor" is likely to be a contentious claim per WP:BLP and thus requires strong sourcing for each and every entry. If such is required in any list, it is also required in any mention on any page including talk pages and in userspace. Just having a site say they were in a porn film is insufficient to so label any living persons. SqueakBox acted entirely in accord with mandated policy IMO. Collect (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, why is it likely to be a contentious claim when the sources we're using list all or most of the porn films the named actor has appeared in and not just "a porn film"? It's not like we are trying to include Sylvester Stalone or Kristine DeBell from Meatballs (film) in a list of porn actors because they were in a single film. These are people who have clearly chosen to be in the Industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is calling a person a porn star likely to be "contentious"? Perhaps you fail to note that the redlinked names are not unique identifiers to specific people and if we use your criteria, those "real people" with the common names would have been labeled as "porn stars" to the outside world without any references whatsoever. Sorry -- that is precisely why WP:BLP requires strong sourcing in no uncertain terms. And requires removal of any unsourced claims about living people which might be contentious. Collect (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I agree with sourcing and thats why the list has it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is a sobering example of the kinds of problems that arise when we do not take the proper care with such issues. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, wow, interesting and unfortunate turn of events. But its the puritanical and repressed nature of our society that a case of mistaken identity can cause such consternation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:WTAF is an essay, not a policy or guideline. There's nothing wrong with a list of redlinks or adding a redlink to a list per se providing that they are accompanied by a source, even if that redlink is on the talk page, and that the source is in compliance with BLP as outlined by Collect's comment above. Redlinks without a strong source should be removed immediately and permanently per BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WTAF is an essay cited in the redlink guidance. That fact, along with BLP policy, emphasizes the need to keep non-notable (i.e., non-article) names off the pages. (This includes article pages, talk pages, user pages, sandboxes. Why? Because BLP applies everywhere.) Suggesting that adding names on the talk pages, supported by RS, only adds to the burden of monitoring BLPs or would-be BLPs. (I.e., we'd have to go about parsing the references added to talk pages when the poster feels so-and-so might be a pornstar notable enough to get a WP article.) Also, I read "Some of them have been previously deleted, ..." Does this mean we can maintain talk page lists of names of pornstars who once had WP articles? The best and most solidly based course of action is to strictly apply BLP. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it means that those names and their association with porn will be on the site in perpetuity. The only way to mitigate the situation is to list them with a reference like I have done. At least there is some context as Collect mentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with strictly applying BLP, but if a strong source is provided most BLP considerations are satisfied. Using redlinks in article or talk or project space to indicate that an article may be created is well established practice, so I see nothing wrong with doing it here as long as BLP considerations are addressed. Obviously, any name which does not meet notability guidelines should be immediately removed as no article should be created on that person. And a list not in article space should not exist in perpetuity but should only remain if part of an active project to fill those redlinks. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich writes: "The best and most solidly based course of action is to strictly apply BLP" but his argument has nothing to do with BLP. It's a straw man.

There can be sourced material about individuals who are not notable and should/do not have their own articles. Thousands of instances of that are found on WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And if the material is contentious, no matter who it is about, it must be strongly and properly sourced. Rose Agree for example. Collect (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another problematic aspect of adding links to the talk pages are the restrictions in WP:ELNO. In an earlier version of the talkpage, we see www.freeones.com/ listed as a 'reference'. And other redlinked names are 'referenced' by www.iafd.com. Per the WP:WikiProject Pornography#Useful links listing, IAFD attempts to be the porn equivalent of IMDb. The project says IAFD filmographies may be reliable, but expresses doubt concerning biography. And freeones.com is not listed. So much for the strongly and properly sourced data which was posted for the talk page redlinked names. – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another problematic feature of the references comes from IAFD's opening page: "Covering over 151,946 titles and 129,831 performers and directors, the internet adult film database is the premier resource for information about the American porn community on the web, and is maintained by a volunteer staff of editors...." How many of these folks will prove to be notable? A tough research project to be sure (and I'm almost tempted to undertake it). But the sheer number is daunting in terms of sanity and in terms of relying on IAFD as a reference in talk page listings. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as the list is reliably sourced (which appears to be the case, although I'm not familiar with these sources), it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked by this, but it turns out that Collect misrepresented the Rose Agree BLP issue. According to http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/she-was-a-librarian-but-the-internet-said-otherwise/?_r=0, the problem was that there was an article which mixed biographical information about a porn actress and a librarian, confusing the two. This is nothing like a cited name in a list. MilesMoney (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it doesn't appear as if Internet Adult Film Database meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. They seem to be a cross between a fansite and a porn version of IMDB, neither of which are considered reliable according to Wikipedia standards. Nine out of the eleven names are sourced to this website. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of any redlinks with inadequate references that don't establish sufficient notability for a full article. Just as IMDB alone would not establish sufficient notability for an article on a key grip or a minor actor, the porn equivalent would not as well. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret having asked this, but how do we establish notability for porn performers? Do they need to win industry awards? Appear on major producer's labels? Have some, uhm, performance-related claim to fame? MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have provided a link to answer MilesMoney's question. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. What you linked to, WP:PORNSTAR, is a disputed guideline. MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The other source cited, [15] doesn't appear to be reliable either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For contrast, could you give an example of a reliable source for this sort of thing? If not, then are you saying there are no reliable sources out there? MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: I have no idea. I don't really edit in this topic space. In general, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and with editorial oversight. Has anyone tried contacting WP:WikiProject Pornography and asking for advice? They appear to have a list that might be useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#External_links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets try to be clear on this idea, I suggested IAFD and Freeones solely as directories or, in WikiSpeak, "3rd party List articles" and nothing more. As far as a source, IAFD is accepted by the Porn Project as this kind of reference. Almost every porn actor article references the number of films the person has done "per IAFD". I'm happy to give up on Freeones.com since IAFD lists everyone anyway. Freeones has its own merits that will come to light in a future article.

They simply demonstrate that there are a number of films/videos attributed to a particular porn actor. I wasn't trying to establish Notability for anyone. Just simply show that they appropriately belonged on a list of potential articles about porn actors. As SR states in regard to IAFD, "The project says IAFD filmographies may be reliable..." And this is all that I'm claiming. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that IAFD gives us 150K+ titles and 129k+ performers & directors illustrates why simply naming names and linking IAFD to those names is not constructive for the project. As WP:PORNSTAR requires some awards to establish notability, we only muddy the waters if we post listings with "Miss Xxx (pornstar)^[1]" when Miss Xxx has not received any awards. WP:REDLINKs may be acceptable "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." If there is no notability + verifiability, then the redlink should not be created. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to add acceptable material. Adding clearly unacceptable material can be (and is) less than helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SR, it would be helpful if you picked a topic and stuck to it. There are other places to discuss Notability, but what we're discussing here is whether or not a redlink that is accompanied by a reference is acceptable to place on a Talk page. If you want to debate or question IAFD as a reliable source, then join the Porn Project and start a discussion there. Treating major topics like Reliable Sources and Notability like one big anamorphic subject is not constructive, beneficial, or worthwhile. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Scalhotrod has raised an important point, and I feel that it will greatly further this discussion if Srich would address specifically and in detail the points Scal has articulated in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Calderon and Ronald Calderon

I removed from these articles here and here, content that look to violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. IP 99.38.132.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) cleaned up the content and put it back here and here.

Am I in error or does WP:BLPGOSSIP apply? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have reverted the unregistered editor's re-addition of the material on both articles, watchlisted both articles, and provided the unregistered editor with a mild(ish) warning. ("LA Weekly Magazine is not a reliable source for articles on living persons; nor is their opinion of a living person encyclopedic material" being the customised part of that warning.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, Thanks Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Abulhawa

Under the section Other Professional Activities, there is a two paragraph section that has been cut and pasted from another article. It is footnoted, but it is fully the opinion of one Howard Silver. His opinion is not a neutral one and should be removed from her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.138.89 (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - there is no indication as to why we should consider Mr. Silver's opinion of Abulhawa in any way encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As'ad AbuKhalil

As'ad AbuKhalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we get some experienced BLP eyes on this article to examine the 2 edits by 79.177.199.82 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ninja of Tao

Not sure if this is User:Ninja of Tao's info or an attack page. After reverting much vandalizing by Catboxx12 (talk · contribs) and 76.97.172.11 (talk · contribs), I received this legal threat by Catboxx12: diff. Jim1138 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations there. Catboxx was not challenging Ninja's identity - only his biography. And since that biography does not even potentially defame anyone (except Ninja himself), there are no BLP violations. In the meantime, Catboxx12 has been indeffed as he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Spanish speakers needed

Eduardo Feinmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's been claimed that the creation of this BLP article was a result of its subject losing some legal case which sought to reduce coverage of him on other websites or other Wikipedia-language sites. The current enwiki article (as linked) is quite heavy on "controversies", both in a section by that name and another section, and also in the lead.

The article needs some attention to examine the sources and work out how much of this is justified or reasonable. While we don't censor articles because someone is unhappy, neither should we be engaging in, or permitting, "revenge editing". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Sally

Multiple users (mostly anonymous) have repeatedly added a date of death to Paul Sally's article, claiming that he has recently died. (latest example) Since there are no published reports of his death, the edits are inappropriate at his time. The article should be protected. Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Added to WP:RFPP Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved: The page has been protected. Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Adrienne Papp Comment

Adrienne Papp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could this article be looked at, please? It appears to be very much a vanity article, with much of the editing by what appears to be a single-purpose account. Which has added links to an article by this person to various wiki articles. And the External Links section could do with some trimming, perhaps? Thanks for whatever help can be provided. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

I have gone through all of the sources I could find and meticulously fact checked statements made in the article against the sources, and to the best of my knowledge the article stays true to the sources. This BLP is a bit touchy, in part because it addresses the mental state of the subject. The sourcing used is from solid sources, such as the NYT. Some editors seem to want to slant the events discussed in the article through the view of Lindauer, and ignore what the RS actually state. One editor made such an edit using a reference from RT.com which describes itself as "... covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more and delivers stories often missed by the mainstream media to create news with an edge. RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint". The "news" stories this source presents seems to have a conspiracy theory bent, so I question its reliability. In any case, I'd welcome a review of my review.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the categorizations of her as a spy, because it is exceedingly questionable whether she was at any point engaged in espionage, and at any rate, that represents a crime of which she has not been convicted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dov Lipman

There is a blatant error regarding Rabbi Lipman's relationship with the current head of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbi Feldman) that I have tried to address in two edits and that has been returned to the Biography each time. Rabbi Feldman is listed as Rabbi Lipman's former Head of the Yeshiva. In fact as documented in references 5 and 6, Rabbi Feldman was not only not at the Yeshiva during Rabbi Lipman's tenure there, he has in fact never met Rabbi Lipman. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Blessed Memory was the Head of the Yeshiva then.

This is significant firstly because the lack of familiarity can account for Rabbi Feldman's misinformation that led to his retraction of the term "wicked" apostate. Secondly, the use of the term "shamed" itself is misleading as that term never was used by Rabbi Feldman and in light of the much milder retraction, is defamatory to Rabbi Lipman. Thirdly, the invitation by the largest Orthodox body in the U.S. (the RCA) to Rabbi Lipman to give a keynote address this year after the matter with Rabbi Feldman was publicized shows that the education issue in Israel is complex, not universally accepted in the Orthodox world and not helped by name-calling in a Biography.

A less crucial point that I tried to address is the sentence saying that Rabbi Lipman's position is in line with Education Minister Rabbi Shai Piron. That statement is not relevant to Rabbi Lipman's Biography inasmuch as there is no evidence that Rabbi Lipman was influenced at all by Rabbi Piron.

In the interest of fairness, I strongly request that the sentences from "This is also the position of ..." through "unintentional sinner" be removed. References 5 and 6 should also be removed as they document the dispute that should be removed from the Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.152.96 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Whyte III

The following was posted to my talk page - it's clear they want more input on Daniel Whyte III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

jwales@bomis.com

Mr. Wales:

We trust that you are doing well.

My name is Syntyche with Gospel Light Society Intl.

In December of 2008, we filled out the details on the Wikipedia page for our founder, Daniel Whyte III. Over the years, we have edited the page a couple of times to add information to it. We want to thank you and the Wikipedia staff for providing this free service that we and many others have benefitted from.

However, recently, we found out that some of the information on the page was removed by a user named Dougweller who stated that certain portions were not properly sourced. We attempted to add information to the page on yesterday with better sourcing, however, the same user took down the majority of content on the page as of this morning, December 31, 2013.

We do not want to cause any trouble regarding this matter, because if you knew Daniel Whyte III, you would know that he is not someone who is ineterested in being promoted, or desirous notoriety or fame. However, we found two articles online stating that Dougweller has been accused of removing factual information from other articles on Wikipedia. The links to those articles are below:

We sent the first link to you in a direct e-mail message as it was unable to go through.

The second link is: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/03/scott-wolter-and-richard-thornton-accuse-wikipedia-cherokees-and-forest-service-of-anti-wolter-conspiracy.html

Honestly, we really do not know what is going on. But we cannot imagine Wikipedia or anybody else having a problem with a Christian minister and writer who has authored 34 books that do nothing but glorify God, proclaim Jesus Christ, and encourage young people and others to live good, decent, quality lives. If you feel like Doug Weller is just doing his job as you have instructed him, we are willing to be educated as to how to put things on Wikipedia so that they will not be taken off. We have no interest in supplying misleading information in this forum as we are Christian people who are striving to do the right thing. We were just taken aback and disturbed to find this negative information about someone editing Daniel Whyte III's Wikipedia page who claims to be associated with Wikipedia.

We would like to re-list the bio information along with the following information (which Dougweller removed) on the page:

1. Daniel Whyte III's degrees from accredited universities. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from Bethany Divinity College, a Bachelor’s degree in Religion from Texas Wesleyan University, a Master’s degree in Religion and a Master of Divinity degree from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

2. The list of Daniel Whyte III's books which have been published by Torch Legacy Publications (www.torchlegacy.com), which is officially registered in the State of Texas and is a part of GLM Omnimedia Group, LLC. Torch Legacy Publications has been around since 1992 and its books have been distributed through major distributors such as Choice Books, Bookworld, Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and STL Distribution, which have sold books to major bookstore chains such as Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books-a-Million, Family Christian Stores, Lifeway and others.

3. The list of radio broadcasts and podcasts which Daniel Whyte III is the host of.

Is there an editor/administrator who we can go through in order to make these changes and have them approved so that we will not have any further issues. We can provide proof for the three items mentioned above. Please let us know what we need to do. Your help is greatly appreciated.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

Syntyche

P.S.: We just found Doug Weller's name on your site as an administrator. That makes us feel a little better. So, we are going to forward this e-mail to him as well.

Also, we are going to resubmit the bio, as it came from our president's website. We didn't think we were violating any copyright issues by taking the information from our president's own website. If you do not mind, we are going to rewrite it and submit it with the proper sourcing. Or, if someone at Wikipedia needs to do it, we will be glad to send it to them for posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwwdts (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added appropriate messages about COI and copyright to the editor's talk page. Obviously well-meaning but not familiar with our policies and guidelines. Note that Whyte is president of GLM Omnimedia Group LLC[16] and affiliated sites include:

Top sites within our network include:

www.InternationalChristianHerald.com

www.BlackChristianNews.com (BCNN1.com)

www.UrbanChristianNews.com

www.LatinoChristianNews.com (www.LCNN1.com)

www.NewAmericaToday.com

www.TheBlackDaily.com

www.GLBN.TV (Gospel Light Broadcasting Network)

www.BCNN3.TV

www.BCNNRadio7.com

www.GospelLightSociety.com

www.GospelLightWorldRadio.com

www.GoToChurchOnline.TV (www.GTCO.TV)

So "Several of Whyte's books have also been named BCNN1/BCBC Bestsellers." is not quite as significant as it appeared to me at first.

I'd also appreciate other input here. I'll tell the editor about this. Dougweller (talk)

Randall Carver's birth information

I reverted unsourced info of his birthdate and birthplace. However, his official website may verify his birthplace and birthdate, but his birth year is missing. Also, it explains his family history that is not covered by secondary sources. Is his official website reliable per WP:BLPSPS? If so, which info must I include from the website? --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Emanuel_Sifuentes

Emanuel Sifuentes

This article seems to be a copy of a lot of the material from the Billy Collins article. For example Emanuel Sifuentes is not a distinguished professor at Lehman College and has not bee Poet Laureate of the United States. Other information that I have no way of knowing about (place of birth) matches the information on the Collins page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsmom (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis Joseph Posner

A sockpuppet (Admin Bbb23 removed the sock's entry on this page) seems to be very upset about this article's very existence, understandably as the article contains some embarrassing information and one might reasonable assume the sock has some sort of association with Posner. The article is over at AfD, several of the comments invoke BLP, which should be of some interest to the readers of this board. Would those that haven't seen or responded to this AfD request take a peek and share your thoughts?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. in article name?

Should the BLP article be Dr Raghuram or his name in the article, P. Raghuram? I would make it the latter. Advice?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what is used more commonly in reliable sources? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed already and there is a policy regarding it. The person's name is correct for the title. Their achievements or titles should be in the body of the article including earned status such as being a "doctor" whether its medical or a PhD or honorary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally uses the normal name - and mentions titles in the body of the article. Exceptions are made for some inherited titles, etc., delineated in the MOS, some of which are given following the name of the person in the title of the article. Wikipedia, as being edited by a herd of cats, is not absolutely consistent in any of this. Collect (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:HONORIFICWP:CREDENTIAL. We don't put "Dr." in front of a person's name, except in very narrow circumstances. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If the user is notable under the name that includes the title (e.g., Dr. Spock for the famous American pediatrician Benjamin Spock) a redirect can be created, but the article should be titled using their disambiguated person name. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Wilkos

Steve Wilkos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article states that Steve served in the Marine Corps from 1982-1989. Earlier in the article it states he saw action in the Korean War. This cannot be correct. The Korean War was fought before Steve was born.

Also, the artcle states that Steve is a world class skater and is under contract with Xtreme Skating? This is hard to believe and has not been verified... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.241.222 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That actually says his dad served in Korea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And I reverted the Xtreme Skating info, as it wasn't backed up by any refs. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reveille (dog)

Reveille (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd be very grateful if someone with BLP experience (and maybe an interest in dogs, sport etc!) could please have a quick look at this article and its recent history. Accusations, possibly of criminal, or at least dubious behaviour, against named individuals have been made and removed. The article is currently a bit of a mess after many recent edits. My interest is (very) tangential and I don't know enough to fix it or watch it usefully. Can anyone help, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I see the removal of this is sourced to this, which is a dead link as far as I can tell. As such, it is unreferenced and can be removed uncontroversially. Even if it were live, judging from the URL it seems it's someone's recollection, so it would have to be worded as such rather than presented as fact. Like everything else, we have to say what the sources say. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jon Paul Piques

Jon Paul Piques

This page has no real sources or true information. The 2 references on the page do not include any information at all about the person.

The Personal section, more importantly the last 3 sentences, have no basis for inclusion whatsoever and no sources.

This biography significantly exaggerates the persons past, but in reality his career is not verifiable or notable.

For these reasons, this biography should be deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is not the place to report issues with lack of notability, but nonetheless I've nominated it for deletion since he doesn't seem to meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Phil Robertson query

Is US Magazine a reliable source for personal details about this person, and oif so are the details presented complaint with WP:BLP? [17]. (Robertson married Marsha Kay Robertson while a student at Harding University in Arkansas when he was twenty years of age and she sixteen) The US Magazine article does not actually support the entire claim ... but a second source given is [18] which backs AFAICT essentially none of the claim ascribed to it. The claim appears to me to be OR and SYNTH and not actually using either of the two refs attached to it. Searches seem to indicate no definitive opinion on using US Magazine, but I am also concerned that the claim is not even supported by it :( Any input is welcome. Collect (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Yahoo source backs up the claim. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It covers part of it -- but does the Yahoo source meet WPLRS as it appears to be "celebrity filler"? The rest (name of university) is not found in the Yahoo source either. And we still do not know whether celebrity mags on general meet WP:RS here. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The information is readily sourced, but the larger question is whether it needs to be mentioned. It seems undue and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason not to mention it as long as it's sourced. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Phil's comments about marrying teenagers that have gone viral, it would seem logical to mention that he followed his own advice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, two nonsensical assertions in a row. No, mere availability in a source does not merit inclusion on its own. And no, Robertson's comments from the Sportsman Ministry video did not "go viral"; they made an appearance in the 24-hour news cycle as a continuation of the larger controversy, and now they are all but forgotten (except among those with an ax to grind who suddenly find themselves on the losing side of the dispute regarding his continued employment with A&E). Roccodrift (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ax-grinding? Losing side? Seems like talk for waging a battle rather than working with others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue with RS is another matter - this seems to be very much a tabloid-dominated subject to begin with. Is there a concern that I'm missing? In most Southern states the age of consent is 16 in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Robertson's recent remarks about gay people and blacks during the Jim Crow laws era have had some repercussions including some of his past videotaped statements being unearthed. The latest one is where he encourages men to marry teenaged girls."New Duck Dynasty Bombshell: Phil Robertson Shares Controversial Views on Teen Marriage" As you point out the view is not unheard of, yet in light of his recent past remarks it paints a picture of sorts. Personally I think people forget that marriage has evolved greatly even in the past decade, and that women as property is still a standard seen around the world even if not considered an enlightened view. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail, which Collect considers a reliable source, supports the fact that Robertson married his wife when she was 16 ([19]). That should satisfy his concern about sourcing. Whether this fact belongs in the article is a question outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)