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.

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the monkey bit should go. It's puzzling that the lead makes no mention of this aspect of his life (the general issue, not the monkey bit). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the monkey bit is all you see as being tabloid fodder? Um -- look closer at the "stuff" and the SYNTH in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "toxicology report" from his DUI arrest has now been repeatedly added to the BLP. Are such reports of encyclopedic value in a BLP? Collect (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I would consider this a primary source. We could not use this unless a reputable secondary source has published it. --John (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Does CNN count as a primary source? [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect from your WP:POV they are minor things. But when these "minor things" are reported in detail in reliable and secondary sources then they become inclusion worthy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now an editor seems to think the "petition to deport" is worth 1600 characters in the BLP ... AFAICT, the White House has not the authority to deport, making the "petition" a bit of a sideshow. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, full disclosure; I signed it too. :) But it has no place in a WIkipedia article, online petitions are fluff. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't be bustin on da beeb. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that this is even up for discussion. Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. It is beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Any idiot can. And handfuls might follow. 200k is not a handful. Not every petition is the one that gains the most sigs. "THIS" one is. It's not generic. This petition is notable. I think it is stupid. I think there's no chance that the white house will do more than hand wave about what they can do. That doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning. --Onorem (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. It will have no effect on the life of the BLP, and is nothing more than tabloid fodder. Maybe if Justin Timberlake started the petition, and Obama responded personally, it could be mentioned on JT's article. But not in Bieber's or Obama's. Dave Dial (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• The petition actually took up slightly over 1800 characters... over 1350 were references to five sources: TIME, Reuters, CNN, The Indepedent and MarketWatch. Straw man again, Collect? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  
• I'm just getting a vibe of sheer arrogance here from several editors. Right on this page the petition is described as a bit of a sideshow, online petitions are fluff and nothing more than tabloid fodder. This is apparently in contradiction to the many reliable sources which have chosen to report this incident. I have already posted on the article's talk page on sources which have reported this in serious detail: Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News, Toronto Sun. There's more when I search now: Agence France Presse, BBC, Associated Press. The four news agencies mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources have been covered. What more do you need to convince you? Is there even a need to convince you? Do you have the authority to dismiss all these reliable sources? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. - I have mentioned reliable sources to back me up, can you do the same for this statement? Can you prove this is the case? The multiple reliable sources apparently don't support your view. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. - and so what? Each "petition" should be analysed by itself. Other petitions should not affect it. Read below on how this petition is relevant to Bieber's article - it's to his image. Similarly, Morgan's petition would reflect his image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP / no effect on the life of the BLP - it's comments like this that make me feel this discussion should not be here. It should be on Bieber's talk page. I don't know if you guys are getting the full picture here. I have posted my rationale for adding the content on the talk page. Please go and read it in full. Essentially, the content was posted in the "style, image and news" section of Bieber's article. The petition reflects Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. 200,000 people have endorsed Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". This is relevant to Bieber's image. Petitions that cross the 100,000 signature mark require an official White House response. Bieber's petition has doubled that and become the most popular open petition on the website. This makes it noteworthy. Whether the White House has the legal authority to deport Bieber has nothing to do with Bieber's image and thus should not even be discussed, whereas the mere existence of the petition with its signatures reflects Bieber's image. The multiple sources I provided above prove that this incident is well documented. Since nobody has cited policy yet, I will: the content fits WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• As mentioned, please take further discussion to the talk page, you will be able to read more responses there as well. I have included this discussion there in a collapsed section. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- BLP discussions are properly placed on this noticeboard, and I deleted your copying of this page to the article talk page -- such "moves" are improper and can be misleading as the timestamps do not correspond to timestamps on the article talk page. Please simply use the concept that BLP discussions are properly held here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to merge the discussions in good faith, so that everyone there and everyone here can come together to discuss, instead of some here (or some there) not reading what's on the other side. There seemed to be more discussion on the talk page, so I moved it there. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

By number of lines by one editor - close to a tie <g>. The principle is that people watchlist pages they have posted on ... if a post is copied to another page, they will not see the replies at all on the other page. Which is why copying discussions if "not done." Collect (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. But anyone who actually watchlisted this page would actually see my notice from 00:15-00:36 that I have tried to move the discussion to the article's talk page. I didn't do this behind anyone's backs. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• and <g>? Let me tell you what I grin about. You clearly had the ability to reply to this discussion, because you did so on 00:41 and 01:14. But you somehow neglected to reply to my rationale on including the content to the article, when I explained in detail how it is related to WP:WELLKNOWN as it is relevant to Bieber's image, noteworthy and well documented. A gentleman would dare to publicly admit defeat. Right now you don't even bother (or don't have the decency?) to reply. You have previously dismissed my arguments with sweeping statements and broadly hid behind WP:BLP, a rather disturbing trend. Also, please don't pull the "I have a life" card again. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The petition is a joke, and deserves zero mention in the article at this time. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What a weak reply. Nothing to back your statement up, no reference to policy, no reliable source cited. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been away since yesterday, but see nothing that has transpired here in the last 24h to change the situation. That these faux petitions are covered by the media doesn't make them relevant to the subject's biography. Piers Morgan's article doesn't mention the signatures in support of his deportation either. I'd be supportive of a brief entry at We the People (petitioning system), as it is the petition itself that received the coverage. It has nothing to do with the subject's legitimate legal woes. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, Collect and Dave Dial. The petition is not a central part of the story of Bieber's biography. It is interesting, to a point, and that is why newspapers cover it. But we are not a newspaper. If it is still attracting serious comment in a year we could cover it. --John (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the petition should not be included, these kind of things as Tarc pointed out got the same coverage by the people who wanted to build a real Death Star. As for Justin Bieber's legal troubles if WP:RS are reporting them then we should include them per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view being a fundamental principle (WP:PILLAR). So while the article has a section devoted to his philanthropic work which is also documented in WP:RS so should his legal troubles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity purposes, here is the updated content in question: In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days.

For the three users who have posted above me, I can't help but feel that you haven't grasped my point of view yet, specifically, regarding the content's relevancy to the article (Bieber). I acknowledge that it is possible to view the petition, by itself, as nothing to be included in Bieber's biography, because it wasn't actually something Bieber did? Simply put, you view the petition as being separate from Bieber. But I disagree, because I take one extra step to see a "bigger picture". The petition clearly states what it thinks of Bieber, chief claim that Bieber is a negative influence to American youth. Is this not reflective of Bieber's image? There is a section on Bieber's image in his article. If there were no section on Bieber's image, the petition would not be relevant unless Bieber is actually deported, as there would be nowhere for the petition to fit in. But by endorsing the petition, the signatories have endorsed this view of Bieber's image. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional replies to Tarc, just because Piers Morgan's article does not cover it, doesn't mean Bieber's article should not. It could be that both articles should have the content. From what I see, Morgan's article has no "image" section, so there is no good place to insert that content. To Knowledgekid87, just because the White House has received a petition for a Death Star, to me it doesn't affect the relevancy or the noteworthiness of the content in relation to Bieber. Noteworthiness is determined by the White House's rules that it has to respond, as well as Bieber's petition being the largest open petition, a days-old petition overtaking months-old ones. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clue: Reposting walls of text generally does not actually convince others that you are somehow the only person to really understand Wikipedia polices. Collect (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You've done nothing to rebut my arguments except implying that I still do not understand policy, while posting too much. Your post is quite irrelevant to the argument at hand. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If I am making an argument, I try to back it up with elaboration and substantiation, so that it all links together (in this case, to Wikipedia policy). It's not fluff trying to out-type anyone else. I don't just state my point and leave expecting others to understand (see Two kinds of pork's post for example, and even yours, Collect, because you were the first one to revert my edit, I expect the most substantial arguments to come from you, but what have you produced? Simple arguments I have shot down and side-steps) Quite frankly, I am insulted that nobody is really bothering to argue on my rationale. I have done my part to argue my point-of-view, but honestly, nobody is offering a direct and detailed response, how will consensus be derived then? By ignoring me? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File a RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, however at this point I think there's no need to. I hope all other parties will give more detailed replies... you too, Two kinds of pork, are free to elaborate on your own stance and also argue why my own rationale is not "valid". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is, when we do include criticisms of the subject in a biography we tend to look for critics who are actually credentialed or in some way recognized as a reliable/recognizable voice. That's why we go with rock critics to include in music articles, a Roger Ebert for film, and so on; not randomguywithblog.com, not a person-on-the-street interview. That's where these petitions lie, in the realm of the anonymous and the ill-informed. A mass collection of stupid people doing stupid things can itself be notable, sure, that's why we can mention it in the petition article. But the opinion of thousands of anonymous individuals on a matter of celebrity and immigration issues is 100% worthless. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it is definitely among the better ones. I get that a critic is more reliable or preferred. But this is the public commenting on Bieber's public image, it's not just hundreds or thousands of people endorsing their opinion, it is hundreds of thousands of anonymous members of the public endorse a certain opinion regarding their image of Justin Bieber, then I think it's noteworthy. The White House itself sets their threshold for an official response as 100,000. That's what they consider noteworthy. The newspapers of the world have reported the petition once it crossed the White House's threshold, so they consider it noteworthy too. That's why I too, follow suit and consider it noteworthy. Bonus points for being the largest open petition and surpassing month-old petitions within days. It's not that the image section is called "image in the eyes of critics only". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We as editors have the luxury of being able to use discretion about content to include, even if it is reliably sourced. This petition is obviously a joke and any coverage it has received has not discussed the matter with any seriousness. Should the petition reach a groundswell, and obtain coverage of more than a light hearted note, I'd imagine our shared discretion will certainly change to include. But I doubt that's gonna happen. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a lack of seriousness, it's probably because experts say Bieber won't be deported, which I acknowledge. I will still maintain that the petition's relevance to the article is not on immigration, but on its signatories opinion on Bieber's image of a negative influence. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

100,000 clicks on an ePetition doesn't mean that 100,000 individuals expressed their opinion, though. Online petitions are rife with [manipulation] and lulz, because we cannot verify the identity of the voters. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What you said is true, and will apply for any online petition. It doesn't mean this petition was manipulated though, unless you have a reliable source suggesting that. I believe that the news agencies have taken this into account when reporting it. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents regarding the petitions topic, but as starship.paint stated, isn't the fact that this petition has been covered by a lot of major media a sufficient reason for mentioning it? See Time, Forbes, others... It might be indeed just a tabloïd-friendly topic, but even here in France it did make it to major TV news programs. Whatever your views are on the relevance of this petition, the media consider it a significant event - maybe just funny or plain stupid, but significant. OTOH I agree that it doesn't deserve more than a few sentences, at least until TWH responds. --JimeoWan (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that US Lawmakers are getting involved in the petition: [2][3] So it's notability might not be as questionable now. The petition now has just under 250,000 signatures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As there are almost 320 million citizens of the United States, it seems that well under one in a thousand Americans has signed this petition. That's not a landslide. The place to report on this petition is the article about the petition website, not in a biography of a living person. If the U.S. government actually initiates deportation action, perhaps then. But all kinds of BLP crud can accumulate around the most famous celebrities, and we have to show some editorial judgment. This is chaff, not wheat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And how many of those petitions get a response from congress? This is not mere tabloid crud. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And the Congressional Resolution is where? That a single member of Congress says something is not the same as Congress doing something. Collect (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's almost like some here have the mistaken notion that this petition process is an actual cog in the machinery of the federal government, i.e. a means of private citizens initiating actual legislation. All this website has been since Day 1 is a public relations novelty, not a direct channel between President Obama and his voters. When petitions reach the threshold for response, said response is delegated to some obscure policy wonk. The Death Star response was penned by a Paul Shawcross, the chief of the Science and Space Branch in the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in the talk page; this argument is getting really ridiculous. As far as I can see the only reason people have to not include this event in his article is because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Correct me if I am wrong. This petition has significant coverage (including just about every new company such as CNN, USA Today, NY Daily, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox, Time, ABC, and countless more you can easily verify yourself). In fact the petition has gained support from Sen. Mark Warner (sarcastic or not is simply speculation).

The petition has been the subject of debate on the legality of deporting him based on his past criminal record (refs [4][5][6]) or whether his O-1 visa could be revoked (refs [7]). His petition has also taken a spin into the immigration debate with various news outlets suggesting bieber is a new face of immigration ([8]). I fail to see why is there an argument in the first place. --CyberXRef^☎ 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's have https://canada.wikipedia.org already, and deport the info to there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, there is no legitimacy at all in an actual deportation taking place here, and this has nothing to do with immigration in general. If this is the TMZ-esque spin that some are giving this, then that is all the more reason to keep it out of the article. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, more WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've yet to make any real argument against it, other than throwing your standard "it has no value" argument. It's not about whether he can be deported or not, the whole petition speaks volumes to his public image. It's not a pass-by mention, it's something that has received world-wide attention. although since we are on that topic, if his 'Egg-Gate Case' matures into a felony charge as being reported, he CAN be deported ([9], [10], [11], [12]). It should be noted that all of that is conveniently omitted from the article, again...

Frankly I am not happy with many of the other edits to that article. People are not maintaining a WP:NPOV. His legal issues are mounting up and certain individuals continuously remove every mention of it from the article. Many of these incidents are very notable and should be reflected in the article appropriately (read: appropriately; not in a way that glorifies it and certainly NOT by omitting it). Most recently, by Flyer22 in this edit and this one on Tofutwitch11's edit. It's clearly not a "another poor attempt to highlight legal aspects". It's a notable event that's easily verifiable and deserve mentioning. Regarding his marijuana smoking in his private jet on his way to the super bowl, putting all their lives at risk even after the crew demanded that they stop smoking. Where the smoking got so bad the pilots were actually forced to wear oxygen masks! (Huff Post, NBC, The Guardian, time). You continuously throw WP:BLP but you forget that BLP means natural point of view, it doesn't mean purposely remove/omitting any negative acts done by the subject. It's not our job to defend Mr Bieber, it's our job to present things in a neutral and encyclopedic way. Now, I am not saying each of these events should take up a whole paragraph, however they should not be omitted either. --CyberXRef^☎ 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't link to my name/ping me in an attempt to justify overly detailed material added to highlight Bieber's legal troubles. Bieber's legal troubles was/still is already summarized in the Justin Bieber article. And then Tofutwitch11 devotes a paragraph to one incident that is not even the most notable or is barely notable? That is most certainly a WP:Undue weight violation, like I stated in this follow-up edit summary. Wikipedia summarizes; see WP:Summary style, for example. It is not supposed to document every single thing and in as much detail as possible. And having a Legal issues section, whether with a subheading as part of the Personal life section or separate from it, is criticized for valid reasons on the Justin Bieber talk page.

Leave me out of your ridiculous drama, because I could not care less about protecting Bieber. I do, however, care about text that violates MOS:PARAGRAPHS (as the edit history of the Justin Bieber article shows, for instance, here and here) and other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially when those violations are taking place all just to emphasize what a "bad boy" or "bad girl" someone is. The attempt by some of you here to make Bieber out to be the worst person since, for example, Charles Manson could not be more obvious than it already is. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer there appears to be a WP:PRECEDENT when it comes to Legal issue subheaders in articles, some examples:

Tank Johnson

Brandon Marshall

Ol' Dirty Bastard

Snoop Dogg

Pete Townshend

I can go on as there are more examples but will stop there. Now I understand there is a converse to the essay I provided but if you strongly oppose the addition here to Bieber's article then I feel some kind of consensus should be put into place when it comes to adding a "Legal troubles" section to an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, frankly, Bieber's legal troubles were adequately summarised... but they only documented incidents until the day of 29 January 2014. Which means that Bieber's legal troubles on 30 January and later, were not taken into account during the summarization. As I see it, Tofutwitch11 was simply trying to add content which has been never brought up before. Also, might I say, since the toxicology report from his arrest found THC (component of marijuana) in Bieber's system, additional incidents involving marijuana become more notable. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• We need more adults over at this article. As in the past we have a tabloid section starting again with daily news. really need to watch over this stuff. -- Moxy (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If people here have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt III

Kermit Roosevelt III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to conflate Kermit Roosevelt III and Kermit Roosevelt IV. Teddy would not be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tem42 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Teddy would be delighted that his family is still causing trouble. Anyway, the talk page contains this message from the UPenn Professor named Kermit Roosevelt:

“ Hope this doesn't make things harder for you ... probably something I should have mentioned before. We've done a very bad job keeping the numerals straight. When my great-grandfather died, my grandfather, who'd been Kermit Roosevelt Jr. started calling himself Kermit Roosevelt Sr. That made sense, I suppose, on the theory that he was now the elder living Kermit. So my father was called Kermit Roosevelt Jr. for, I think, almost his whole life. I was born while my grandfather was still alive and was called Kermit Roosevelt III. When my grandfather died, my father told me that he was dropping the Jr. and suggested that I could take it up if I wanted. I said that was the craziest thing I'd ever heard of, because I had enough trouble being confused with him already and had used Kermit Roosevelt III in all of my legal documents (passport, driver's license, bar admission, etc.). I also publish my law review articles as III, but I thought it would look wildly pretentious on a book jacket, so I left it off. ” — Kermit Roosevelt Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104

And from a later email:

“ No one but me has ever been called Kermit III, and I've never been called Kermit IV, although I am definitely the fourth Kermit. Both my father and my grandfather have been Kermit Jr., and if my father takes the Sr., then he and my grandfather (and I think my great-grandfather) will have shared that. ”

All completely unreliable, but still....Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. President Theodore Roosevelt openly outright DESPISED being called "Teddy"- referring to him as such is essentially dishonoring him.

2. Per WP:SUFFIX, "IV" is his true suffix. Calling him "III" would be a suffix misuse and would be basically like disregarding the existence if one of the previous Kermits. Discounting them would be a dishonor. 174.254.176.242 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance. If he uses "III" then "III" it is. I would also point out that if any middle names are involved for any of them, then all bets are off as to "numbering" people. Collect (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the applicable policy and the III is part of his common name and the name he uses. It is not really relevant that someone without an article (even if it was his father at some point in the past) shared that name. If that other person did have an article only then would we need to disambiguate the names, but that is not the case here. We shouldn't be in the business of "correcting" a person's name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the suffix, he did say the III is part of his legal name as he uses it on official legal documents so it is not a mere honorific. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the "III" is not a "required part of a legal signature" thus that part is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If he signs a document without the "III" it is still his legal signature. Collect (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is part of his name on his passport and other documents that require the full legal name as he said in his note. Passports usually match birth certificates. How you sign stuff seldom requires you to use your full legal name. It is relevant to the discussion as that is a part of his full legal name and that should be what is in the article as his name. This generational stuff is a distraction and that is what is irrelevant. General wiki policy on how we name articles and reliance on reliable sources is the only thing we should be concerned with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IOW you seem to think his birth certificate must have "III" on it? I doubt it. And try reading up on "legal signature" - nowhere is it required that some mystical "full legal name" is required, or even exists. For example, passports do not require "legal name change" forms where a person is married, nor do most married women have their full maiden name on passports, though they may. "Full legal name" is not even relevant to this discussion - his name is whatever he legally wishes to assert it is (basically, as long as no fraud is involved). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to misrepresent what I stated. I said "usually" not "must" as I haven't seen his birth certificate. I am well familiar with the passport application process - "Certified U.S. Birth Certificate" is one of the required documents for people born in the US. If that is the name on his passport it is likely that that is the name on his birth certificate. By common law your legal name is whatever you say it is as long as fraud is not involved but most American men stick with how they were named by their parents and he has asserted that "Kermit Roosevelt III" is his name backed up with usage where fraud would matter. The only relevance to wiki about his full name is that is the name first mentioned in the lede. Common name is normally how we name articles and the name used in the rest of the article. In this case we need a disambiguator so the III serves that purpose. We could have just as easily used something else, but the III is convenient and correct as that is part of his actual name. Saying the III is not part of his actual name is what is leading to this discussion in the first place with people thinking it would be OK to "correct" it to IV based on some sort of naming rules his parents and he neglected to follow. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated clearly above, he has the right to use whatever suffix he desires as long as it is not done for any illegal purpose. "Correcting" it to "IV" in a Wikipedia article is thus wrong per my arguments - and does not depend on any "birth certificate name" at all. [13] appears determinative here -- and specifically allows variance from "birth certificate name" and "passport name." BTW, I had an uncle whose "birth certificate name" was wrong - and was easily handled by the Passport office, and my wife's mother's birth certificate listed a "wrong place of birth" (um -- "South Carolina" instead of "Scotland" and the agent did not burp at all). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we agree. The only reason I got into this is because I thought your original comment about the "suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance" weakened your basic point that you reiterated above and that I agree with. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to IP 174.254.176.242 for what TR called the "outrageous impertinence" of calling him "Teddy". At least I'm in very plentiful company.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between common name and actual name. While his common name might be III, his true name is undoubtedly IV. I know from personal experience that death has no impact whatsoever on suffix: My grandfather was a Jr. throughout his life, and the fact that his father (Sr.) died at 58 when my grandfather was 12 didn't change anything at all about his name. My eldest uncle is III and first cousin is IV, and they were respectively 35 and 12 when my grandfather passed away at 61. Calling this Kermit "III" would create a consistency error and make it harder to keep track of the Kermit's. If one of the previous Kermit's had a middle name that the others didn't (or had no middle name when the others all shared one), then he would be III. One cannot simply disregard the existence of the previous Kermit's. Calling him "III" would suggest there were only two Kermit's before him. Therefore, it is misleading to call him "III". The only way a suffix could possibly change after death is if one changes his first/middle/last name(s), like how President Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III after his father William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. (who died three months before Bill's birth) and changed his last name as a teenager to "Clinton" for his stepfather Roger Clinton. 174.236.3.127 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Professional wrestlers who are "lecherous"

In my aimless and time-wasting wanderings through Wikipedia, I sometimes come across articles about professional wrestlers, and never know quite what to make of them. For example, today I arrived at the article about Dean Malenko in which the voice of Wikipedia pronounces him as "lecherous". But are we supposed to treat these professional wrestlers as characters in a drama (in which case "lecherous" might be fine), or instead as real people (in which case "lecherous" might not be so fine)? In other words, are we really supposed to care about professional wrestlers?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it is describing a character he was playing and his "lecherous ways". Yes, we care about professional wrestlers. BLP applies to them too. But in this case, it's describing the role he played. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:PW and frequently edit wrestlers' articles. Since professional wrestling is scripted, the wrestlers are all acting in kayfabe / storylines. Anything in the "professional wrestling career" section usually refers to the character the wrestler is playing. Wrestling has many distasteful storylines but we still have to report them. We've had necrophilia, slamming a 78 year old woman through a table, a "live sex celebration", wrestlers attacking another wrestler in their own homes, a commentator (really) set on fire, miscarriages, all in storyline. We also have storyline injuries, characters (Santino Marella, a Canadian, has played and is playing an Italian for the entirely of his career in WWE) If something is legitimate, which is usually the exception, some kind of note is supposed to be included that the incident is legitimate.starship.paint (talk | contribs) 04:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm just wondering if there ought to be some statement in the BLP for dopes like me, saying that the stuff is not serious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is, it just hasn't made its way around to the bios just yet.--WillC 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know it's in the works, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite single Malenko only pursuing a romantic evening with a woman, he's "lecherous". But when that woman gets knocked up by the pyromaniac necrophiliac mentioned above to "protect" her boyfriend, then ditches both guys (in story and reality) for the aforementioned "live sex celebration", leading fans, wrestlers and commentators alike to chant "Slut!" for the rest of her career, there's none of it. I'm only fake outraged at the hypocrisy, but damn fake outraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Such hypocrisy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good show, everyone. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin Griffin

I want to report some incorrect and defamatory information posted about me on my page:

Colin Griffin

Would appreciate if I could have this deleted and that correct information could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Griffin (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was defamatory, but it appeared to be invented. It certainly wasn't in the "source" that was given for it. Anyway, I deleted it.

I advise you not to edit the article about you. This may appear bizarre -- Who knows you better than you do yourself? -- but if you read more about the matter I think you'll come to understand. Meanwhile, if people add their fantasies, don't hesitate to suggest changes on the talk page; and, if these don't get a prompt response, don't hesitate to post a message here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If blatantly false or unreferenced defamatory information is added to the article, it's perfectly fine for the editor to remove it himself. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly false and unreferenced. Verifiability, not truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Salvador Sánchez Cerén

"Presently he is the vice president and minister of education; his goals have been to bring El Salvador closer to the Chavez Social left as seen by his ties to FARC, ALBA, and Chavezism" is not cited. Because these alleged ties, factual or not, are to controversial organizations, it seems biased to see these on his page without sources ahead of a presidential election in which he will take part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.54.61 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have trimmed that section some. It's tricky, since there was some non-neutral language and, no doubt, some language that his campaign staff might not approve of even if it gets at the truth. The solution is to find the right references and rewrite the whole thing. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yevhen Konoplyanka

• Yevhen Konoplyanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boguslavmandzyuk (talk · contribs)

Can somebody please help explain WP:BLP to this editor? He feels that, because the uncited information is not libellous, it is fine to keep on re-adding it. He has already been warned about edit warring by another admin, but he won't listen to me seeing as I keep removing the material. GiantSnowman 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Matter solved, I suppose, without any interference. GiantSnowman, don't you all have some guidelines in your FOOTY program that you can point to? Drmies (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, we do, and I did - but he ignored it. Anyway, like you said, another editor has found a reliable source to verify the information sp it's all good. GiantSnowman 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Blacklight Power is a pseudoscience, free-energy provider with many claims that are far outside of the mainstream. These claims are rightly treated with great skepticism. However, that doesn't exclude it's founder - Randell Mills, from the protection of WP:BLP. In particular, the article uses the term "fraud" in the lede with very thin support. The citation traces back to a 15-year-old article that appeared in the Village Voice, and is sourced to an expert physicist, but not someone in a position to accurately judge the motivations of Mr. Mills nor to interpret the field of securities fraud. The use of the term has been actively defended at the page, in my view in violation of WP:BLP. If there were more recent evidence of fraud, or if the those leveling the charge were able to show a cause of action, such as an investor, then the use of would be appropriate. However, I'd appreciate it if someone not involved in this page could take a look. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't specifically mention "securities fraud", and I'm not sure where Ronnotel is getting that reading, nor why he keeps repeating it. I would think that the implication (given the commenter and context) is one of scientific fraud. 'Fraud' doesn't always mean 'money'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why "fraud" is dangerous term to use and should be avoided. It has many meanings, and it's impossible to separate the connotations of financial impropriety in this situation. Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In full context, the sentence in our article reads

"The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion."

There's no possible way to misread that as referring to financial impropriety. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. BLP has raised $80M on the basis of this scientific claims. If his claims are fraudulent, then how could that not be interpreted as financial impropriety? As it happens, I do know something about securities fraud and Mills could be exposed if he can be shown to have intentionally misled his investors with fraudulent scientific results. Ronnotel (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the assertion in the source is that it's the scientific claims that are fraudulent, then that's a distinct issue -- on its own it doesn't amount to an accusation of financial fraud. The sentence in question does not imply financial fraud (I agree with ToaT that one can't read it that way), and as long as there's no (unsupported) assertion regarding financial fraud I don't think there's a problem. One can after all engage in scientific fraud, and it seems that's what some observers make of the scientific claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the scientist who is quoted is very likely competent to judge whether an experiment and its results is flawed. However, what's at issue is whether that scientist is competent to determine whether the scientific flaws are the result of unethical behavior, which is what the term "fraud" invariably implies. Other scientist with qualifications that are as strong or stronger have been more closely involved with the company in the intervening years and we haven't seen any repetition of the fraud charges. That should give us pause - isn't this giving undue weight? What's more, with a fair reading of the article in question, it's difficult to see how the term "fraud" was the only part that seems to have made it into the lede. The article is actually quite supportive of Mills. Ronnotel (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fraud" is one of those words we have to read objectively. It's really neither a good nor bad thing till we start inferring. But all those quotes should be cited, and "some" replaced by a name(s). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki‎

Isaias Afewerki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article needs a look. Recently Erescholar (talk · contribs) made a large edit to the page, during which Afewerki's last name was changed to "Afwerki". I don't know enough about this person to know if this is the true spelling or not. --Auric talk 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging from a quick Google search, looks like we have it wrong. Everyone else (except Britannica online) uses Afwerki. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Auric, thanks for posting and, FreeRangeFrog, thanks for checking. Both of youse, for the hell of it, look at the very first posting of the talk page--from 2006. Can't believe no one ever picked up on that. Anyway, another editor has already gone through to make spelling consistent, and I simply moved the page. Thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

rita grosse-ruyken

Rita Grosse-Ruyken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

what is the exact problem with this articel and how can we solve the problem? Please be so kind to help us. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita Grosse-Ruyken (talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please click on the bold links in the box at the top of the article for further explanation.--ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher linking to the article ' Amanda Knox'

The Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which I have been editing, has a lede link to the article ' Amanda Knox'. The article ' Amanda Knox', which I have never edited, has as ref 13 (www.perugiamurderfile.org). It's an SPS, and a site that is dedicated to the idea that Knox is a murderer. The source is ref for text in the Amanda Knox article in Wikipedia's voice, which is insinuating that a living person has committed murder. My understanding is such material should be removed. I removed the link, which was put back in, and have made the point in talk that the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is a BLP in relation to Knox. I think the link should be removed, but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article, and also even if there is, I have to fix the Amanda Knox article and must not alter the link to it. Is it true that I have to alter or even propose for deletion the article that is being linked to, rather than removing the link, if the link is to an article with BLP issues. See Talk here There is a lot of stuff in the Amanda Knox article which has BLP issues in my opinion, so it's not like one change would solve the problem posed by retaining a link to it.Overagainst (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not fix the Knox article then? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, at the moment, Knox is convicted under Italian law for the murder. While the murder file site is a terrible reference to use, linking her to the murder is not inappropriate independent of any of our feelings on the case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Because multiple editors on the Amanda Knox article reacted as if it was an all or nothing issue, and challenged me to propose it for deletion when I raised the SPS and BLP. As most of them don't see anything wrong with anything in it, and only 1 editor tells me to fix it; I'm not going to get very far fixing the Amanda Knox article under those circumstances. Also I'm being told Knox has to be treated as a celebrity as her notability obviously transcends the subject of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I don't think she has any notability at all that does not derive from the MoMK, and think the onus is on those who think the Amanda Knox article should exist, to conform it to BLP and worthy of a link from the Murder of Meredith Kercher page. Until then the link should be removed . Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No that's incorrect I'm afraid. If you don't want to fix the Knox article, or can't find consensus to do so, then you shouldn't attempt to summarily to remove a link to it from a pertinent article. One presumes that if you declare it needs to be removed from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, you wish the links to the Knox article to removed from all Wikipedia articles? If not, why not? If so, why focus your argument on this one article? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, it should be borne in mind that under Italian law scientists were convicted in 2012 of not predicting an earthquake and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Anyway, the AK article text source is THEIR (the SPS's) translation of a document in Italian, a Supreme Court report dating from September 2013 giving their rationale for ordering a retrial of Knox and RS. It was not a judgement of the facts in the case. The retrial that just finished will have a written judgement on the facts in the case, that has not been published yet. When it does if there is a good source translation having the article say an Italian court concluded certain things would be fine, that's not the problem. We know they were found guilty at the latest trial. My objection is the AK article text is reffed to the anti Knox site SPS when stating in Wikepedia's voice that more than one person carried out the murder. "The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person.[13]". It is pathologists not autopsies that conclude things, and there were different conclusions by the pathologists as to what the autopsy indicated. The main point is that a translation by Knox guilters at www.perugiamurderfile.org is a a totally unreliable source, especially for having such a BLP innuendo IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE.Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the findings of the Italian legal system, Knox, Sollecito, and Guede are guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher. This is a simple fact that can be presented in the Wikipedia Voice. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guede has exhausted the appeals process. Knox and Sollecito have not. So their status is most certainly not the same. Knox and Sollecito current status is the same as that of Andreotti who was was also 'guilty of murder according to the findings of the Italian legal system, untill the supreme court threw out his conviction. This should be obvious as Sollecito is in Italy and walking around free not in prison, or on bail either. (there is no bail in Italy) while Guede is in an Italian prison. 'According to the findings of the ,Italian legal system', or 'found guilty in by Italian courts on charges of murdering MK is how it should be phrased. But saying that "The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person.[13]" is saying something in Wikipedia's voice a lot stronger than that.Overagainst (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The scientists were not convicted for "not predicting an earthquake" but for their alleged(?) downplaying of the risks. So much for being honest.
  Besides that you were told to bring it up at the aprobiate article, Amanda Knox, by at least 2 editors. Funny that you let stand a perceived BLP violation there instead of working on it and another funny thing is, that you have a big problem with the source used which actually provides a copy of the original court document (BTW, I sure do think it should be replaced with a RS) but not with the non-reliable SPS source used for the same purpose at the article you're arguing about leaving a link to Knoxs' article out. maybe we should purge both articles? ... or what? And how many opinions contrary to yours do you need to be able to accept them?TMCk (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The earthquake scientists got convicted of manslaughter, and were sentenced to prison. The Italian legal system is NOT equivalent to the American or British. The SPS document is a translation by unknown persons at that dedicated anti-Knox site of a Italian language written explanation by the Supreme court of them ordering the trial that just ended). The supreme court was criticising the weight given to evidence by the Hellmann court that acquitted AK and RS, but they were not deciding what the facts of the case were in regard to it being being established that the 55 kg Kercher had injuries that were caused by more than one person. That is my understanding.Overagainst (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, do you have some academic sources for that analysis - there are articles such as [14] which I find interesting. --_nonsense ferret 23:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guess I have to ask you again: Is one POV SPS more reliable than the other? Is one translation superior in your mind and for WP's purpose so we can use it as a source in one article but not in another? Don't you think it would be a good idea to replace those SPSs in both articles? At least in the Knox article the original scanned document in Italian is provided --- not so much in the "Murder of" article (even so, if I remember right, it was there at some point).TMCk (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no equivalence, an SPS can be a BLP source if it's an SPS which is the BLP subject's or one they may reasonably be assumed to approve of, though clearly not for for things being stated in Wikededia's voice. What I was really complaining about is not the verity of translation of the supreme court written explanation of their overturning the acquittal of AK and RS at the Hellmann court, which was being being drawn on. It was the was the way it was used as reference to state a matter of dispute as if it was a fact thus: "The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person" Even if the source was beyond dispute a judgement of an Italian court as to the facts of the case as the forthcoming written explanation of the recent guilty verdict by the Nencini court's re- run of the trial second grade will be, something which is a matter of dispute can not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. Especially when it amounts to innuendo that a living person is complicit in murder. It's more or less been resolved in Talk now.Overagainst (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ferret, here.Overagainst (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think that document is? Doesn't seem to be an academic comparative legal analysis of the italian legal system, which is what I referred to above. --_nonsense ferret 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• This thread is because I wikilinked the name of an article subject and that is now being claimed as a BLP issue. In the opening statement, Overagainst states that she he removed that wikilink and implies that she he was reverted. Could you supply a diff where you removed it? As far as I know this wasn't a revert.

• Her His statement "...but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article..." is incorrect and I would like her him to point out where. I didn't say that and neither did LedRush, TMCk or anyone else in the thread that I can see. Everyone was saying "fix it".
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If I misrepresented the prevailing opinion, forgive me. I'm a he.Overagainst (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've struck through my comments above to correct for gender. My apologies for the mistake.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ferret, I stoataly agree that opinion from the former judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not an academic paper or as good an overview as the superb one one you ferreted out and took the trouble to draw my attention to. I mustela say, however, that Hellmann's qualifications to opine on the specific question on the meaning of the supreme court ruling weasely merit consideration, as he was until recently a member of that Supreme Court of Cassation.Overagainst (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, well I have taken a link like that off, from a FA, though people agreed with me so it wasn't unilateral.Overagainst (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you show the diff please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?Overagainst (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I asked you nicely and there's no reason not to and it's quicker than wading through your contributions to find it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You have become evasive. Pretty obvious what you intend doing. here's the edit. on talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid answering my request with "why" is simply the most evasive answer you could have given. Noted. And thanks. P.S. I asked for the diff, not the history of an article, can you be more specific, thanks). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not one of your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you removed a {{main}} template? What relevance does that have to removing the link to Knox on the Kercher murder page? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a FA review of the Natalee Holloway article that suspended because it became acrimonious and the issues with that link which revolve around creating pages on people who are victims of crime will no doubt be resolved by the FAR. I don't intend to start on that discussion here. However, as you ask the Beth Holloway BLP page is IMO a multiple BLP violation (quotes from her (Beth's) divorce papers, and details her dating history). It could be delinked. I am not aware of any guidance to the effect that when spun of from a crime article, a spun off BLP eponymous page must be linked to as the main page on a person whose notability derives from a crime which is covered in an article. Creating articles on living crime victims has to be done with care. So the Beth Holloway page is not the main article for her. And there is a still to be resolved question of whether it should even exist. As regards Amanda Knox, her notability is similar to Beth Holloway, from a crime; before which she was not famous. If the main article on Amanda Knox is not 'Amanda Knox', and The Murder of Meredith Kercher contains all encyclopedic information on Amanda Knox, no principle says the Amanda Knox article must be linked to, forever. Overagainst (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So as I said above, why are you campaigning to have links removed from one article, not all articles? If the target articles are violations of BLP in your mind and therefore taint any article that subsequently links to them, you need to remove (or suggest that all links are removed) in all such places. Is that your plan? If not, it seems incredibly inconsistent to allow one article to link to a violation of BLP but not another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Things got too acrimonious at the DoNH, so I've let it lie until the FA resumption, where it will provide ammunition I think. If the BH page is fixed (and I am more or less happy with the AK page now BTW) there probably should be a link, but not in the lede. The link being in the lede is a particular problem. The MoMK lede link to a page about AK, someone whose notability derives from the events covered in the main body of the article is sending the reader off the page and the subject. Knox was not a celebrity before the MoMK. A link in the lede of a Murder of type article is for people like OJ Simpson whose fame predated their involvement in the events described in the article, not someone who became well known as the result of a criminal event. Such people may not want a page about themselves that will go on having things about their ongoing life inserted into it for the foreseeable future.Overagainst (talk)

User:Overagainst do you have any guideline or policy to back up your opinion of the positioning of linked items? If it's simply your preference to avoid these, in circumstances as defined by you, I suggest you'll not get very far with your endeavours. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Somewhat begs the question of why we would even have two articles in the first place. Amanda Knox is only known for this one unfortunate event and her article is entirely made up of material which belongs in the Murder of MK article. Why would we want to do this? Purely on practical grounds, given the controversy this has engendered and continues to engender, why would we wish to have two articles to watch? --John (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

3 birthdates for Jasmin Campbell

Jasmine Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are three birthdates and multiple Wiki entries for Jasmin Campbell of the Virgin Islands (March 26, August 11, November 8). Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.2.173 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

November 8 appears to be the correct date.--Auric talk 16:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Chrome_OS#History

My name is Jeff Nelson. I have to open a BLP complaint regarding Chrome_OS#History and its accompanying talk page as it pertains to my previous work on the earliest revisions of Chrome OS and a patent filed by my former employer, Google, in 2009. I have to strenuously object to the tabloid tone of this section, the fact it quotes several unreliable sources, imports a dispute from outside wikipedia, and self-references the dispute as if it was a source for the article.

On Feb 13, 2013, an Internet user posted various allegations in a G+ comment regarding his doubts about my work, in which he clearly states "I truly don't know". But that did not stop this Internet user from making what appear to be extraordinary efforts to spread his uninformed opinion, proceeding to post on several blogs, lookup references to my name anywhere on the Internet, talked to a journalist, and finally imported the dispute to wikipedia.

This gentelman has a large social media following, many of whom added their own snarky comments, like "I don't know who this guy is." Some of those comments are also imported into the wikipedia article. I would suggest snarky statements also do not rise to the level of being considered reliable sources.

To their credit, Google immediately stepped in and told the employees involved to stop posting, less than 24 hours later.

I have asked Google to release a history of my work and the patent to clear up the matter.

Until that happens, I would suggest what is beyond dispute is this:

Google filed a patent titled "Network Based Operating System Across Devices" in March 2009, listing the inventor as Jeff Nelson.

A patent, written by Google's legal team in 2007, filed in 2009, at great expense, and now in the public record of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the most concrete and indisputable source, certainly far more reliable than a G+ post written in 5 minutes, at no cost, by a guy who stated he didn't know what he's talking about.

I would suggest one potential fix for the BLP is to replace the entire BLP paragraph with that one sentence and replace the unreliable sources and imported dispute with a reference to the patent, until Google releases a more complete and official history of my work and the patent. I don't have to tell you that it's entirely inappropriate any of the statements were written on various blogs or imported into wikipedia. My past career is not a subject for speculation or tabloid journalism, and the events of February 13, 2013 should not have happened. Wikipedia is acting as a repository for totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements about my career and past accomplishments.

So as to prevent further damage, I am going to temporarily apply the BLP fix I have outlined above and delete the Talk discussion as it pertains to my work, as well. Provided there is some other resolution, or more information emerges from Google, the fix can be amended at a later point. Chromemagnon07 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't contain anything that doesn't come with good sources. But it's inappropriate to delete entire sections from the talk page, and I've restored these. The discussion there looked entirely normal to me. The key point will likely be whether this source is considered reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Biography of Living Person policy states discussion of the subject should be removed from Talk page unless backed by reliable sources. I have restored the deletion and inserted the BLP template. All further discussion should occur here, not on the Talk page. Srcchecker (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That section is *full* of sources. So I have restored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Srcchecker (talk · contribs) is a "brand new" account. Edits should be checked accordingly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to the G+ comment which the subject is complaining or other blogs should not be considered *reliable* sources in my view. In this case the subject is self reporting what he described as "totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements" and refers to a dispute imported to wikipedia. Srcchecker (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Gorell

There should be a section that covers a politicians voting record when they are in office or running for office atleast.

Also I don't see how it's defamatory to Jeff Gorell to say McGeorge is ranked #124 by U.S. News when Wikipedia has McGeorge Law School ranked #168th.

The truth and facts should matter to Wikipedia. I had the same problem when I changed Elton Gallegly's Wikipedia to the truth. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.149.172 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we regularly report one particular ranking of a politician's law school? Which ranking system should we use? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's something that goes in the article about the school, not in the articles of alumni. --CyberXRef^☎ 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal_Saifuddin

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.

Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. Khuzaima_Qutbuddin also is listed as the claimant in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.242 (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

maicon sisenado #wikipedia-en-revdel

Maicon Sisenado

1. wikipedia-en-revdel There is an error in the Maicon Sisenado's biography. He did not die on February, 8th. This data corresponds to another person named Maicon Pereira de Oliveira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.246.93 (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Maicon Sisenando?--Auric talk 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Alice Walker

I call the attention of the Wikipedia community to the article on Alice Walker. An inordinate amount of the article is devoted to accusations of antisemitism and her support of David Icke, without noting that some readers see Icke's work as satire, and that Icke includes Christians and other religious denominations as part of his conspiracy theories as well.

While much attention has been devoted to Walker's activist efforts in support of Palestinians, no attention is paid to the controversies that erupted after the release of the film The Color Purple concerning Walker's depiction of Black men, nor after the release of Possessing the Secret of Joy concerning Walker's condemnation of genital mutilation. Both of these issues are explored in the film Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth, which aired on PBS American Masters on Friday, 7 February 2014.

Although certainly Walker is an activist, more attention is devoted to her political activity than to her writing or her personal history. It is her writing that is Walker's primary achievement. I am not experienced as a Wikipedia editor, therefore do not dare to edit the article. I hope someone does. As the article stands, it is hardly neutral and not representative. It appears to be accusatory. The article on Icke himself is much more nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightink (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I firmly and thoroughly agree with your contentions. There was massive undue weight placed on that aspect of her life, along with incredibly-overlong recitations of criticism of her views that amounted to regurgitation rather than summarization. I have edited the article accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Kristi Lauren

Kristi Lauren wikipedia page has biased and false information that must be removed immediately. Paragraph two, which begins with "Lauren began...", has bias information written in paretheses. Please remove. Paragraph three, which begins with "From 2011-12", has false information about negative reactions and vandalism. Please remove that as well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetsun (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like petty vandalism. Thanks for letting us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Shishaldin

Article is too short and not enough info is there. Only one link. No last name. Must be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, none of those things are really relevant, yet I sent it to WP:AFD. Okjaekim, next time please use this noticeboard only to report and inquire about violations. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

^ "Asaram's son Narayan Sai declared absconder". Times of India. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2013

Narayan Sai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Asaram's son Narayan Sai declared absconder". Times of India. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2013 Narayan Sai was never an absconding accused for all these days, until he was arrested. His status as absconder was changed on Thursday, when Gujarat high court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Surat court after he was charged with rape. [15]

Please also, as part of this discussion, review the removal of this multiply reliably sourced content (IMHO) which should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN. This content has been removed multiple times by User:TheRedPenOfDoom as well as several IP editors, over the past 48 hours, and frankly I feel that the rationale presented by the registered editor, "allegations from a COI source cannot be presented in an NPOV manner" is not sound as the sources are major national media who are reporting statements made by police officials, with the prose in the article matching the sources. It is quite a stretch to call the police COI when they are merely doing their jobs, and the fact that thegovernment official made these statements is not in dispute. Roberticus (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WELLKNOWN does not trump WP:BLPCRIME "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." While the arrest is certainly public, that the police who have an inherent conflict of interest are spouting allegations of an admission of guilt is clearly something we do not cover until the guilt has actually been determined in court. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review the footnote(#6) at the end of the sentence from WP:BLPCRIME which you cite. It reads (emphasis mine): "Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." Roberticus (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of recent coverage in a national media, I suppose we can compile similar lists from other national media if necessary, but isn't this enough to determine the subject is indeed a well-known individual? Roberticus (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

no matter how well known the individual is, reporting that the police have made allegations of a confession before the trial is completely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

But the police have made this statement, which was reported by multiple WP:RS. I don't see, policywise, how the accusation of confession under interrogation, by authoritative officials, when reported by WP:RS, is any different than the other allegations which WP:WELLKNOWN seems to allow coverage of, but am hopeful others will help develop a consensus 1 way or the other here. Roberticus (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

we have no obligation to report events even if they are in the news. we do have an obligation not to suggest that someone is guilty, particularly when it is based on an allegation that comes from the cops . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"We" are not "suggesting" someone is guilty, the wording is very clear that this is what the police are reporting. "We" are reporting what the sources say, the language is neutral. Your position that nothing can be said on the case until he is proven guilty is clearly incorrect as pointed out by Roberticus. The only question then becomes the quality of the sources, which are high, and the neutrality of the wording, which is neutral. -- GreenC 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

of course WE are when WE repeat the allegations made by those with a conflict of interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Particularly when the allegations of "confession" are specifically being denied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine then lets report this - the police reported he made a confession (prior to obtaining a lawyer), and after he obtained a lawyer, his lawyer says he did not make a confession to the police. Those are the facts. Those facts do not say he is guilty, nor do they suggest he is guilty. -- GreenC 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Smart

Keep an eye on this page. Questionable IP edits after an incident in a game last night. The Moose is loose! 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kahlil Byrd

Kahlil Byrd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Thank you for this work. I am the subject of this article and I am interested in addressing two issues.

1) As the former leader of Americans Elect, we took great care with how the organization was described--in both explanation of mission and in tone. Currently the description of Americans Elect reads:

"During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Americans Elect was a national organization that unsuccessfully sought to nominate and elect a third-party candidate for president[3] by attempting to put a bipartisan presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states.[4]"

This is factually inaccurate and has been pointed out to the those diligent and venerable editors of this page. By law, Americans Elect could not nominate a "Third Party Candidate" because the organization was not a "Third Party. As is cited, Americans Elect was 501(c)4 nominating process creating a third pathway for a bi-partisan ticket in the 2012 race. The third party label is language adopted by critics of the organization who attempt to argue the organization had an ideological agenda apart from the mission stated widely in public areas. Upon having this pointed out with sourcing an editor's response was "(People do illegal things all the time. We have a published news source specific to *this* situation (WP:RS always beats WP:SYNTH)

This is the justification used to hold to a factual inacuracy.

2) Those who have attempted to place a new professional position for the subject in this biography have been repeatedly rejected for no understandable reason. Not allowing this revision to take place gives a false impression about the current work of the subject. A personal note here, as a reformer--and specifically a professional builder of organizations throughout the political reform space--my job is not to be a permanent fixture of organizations, but to be a professional manager of organizations as they grow in size and scope. It appears that edits are being made to discredit this work because of time and tenure, yet those are not solid measure of performance and effectiveness. Further, published reports do not match the tonality that specific editors have taken with regard to this biography.

Help wanted

I have a problem with OTRS ticket:2014020610005258 which is going to need some sensitive handling due to the kinds of enemies the subject has made, the things for which the subject is known, and our systemic bias towards liberal values (don't ever change that). I am not looking for an off-wiki conspiracy but I need to discuss the background privately with a few people in order to be able to frame matters correctly here without violating confidentiality or attracting adverse publicity. The subject is a controversial figure but seems to me to have a genuine concern that we should address. Please email me if you are interested in helping me think this through. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oliver James (psychologist)

The article Oliver James (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a mess: it's peppered with primary source links to YouTube and lacks credible independent sources. It's also been a target for defamatory vandalism (OTRS Ticket:2014021010007122. I guess the subject probably is notable, but the tone makes it look as if the opposite is true. Would someone please have a look at it for me? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know what to do without rewriting the whole thing. Did you have anything specific in mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Morgan Carpenter

• Morgan Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns about article. relies heavily on subject's own writing, predominantly sources blog posts by subject posted on OII website he administers, edits and publishes. I have asked sole editor, Nsw2042, about possible WP:COI or WP:SELFPROMOTE by asking whether he is the subject of the BLP. Have received no reply. I would question subject's notability for a BLP as substantial as this. Note this editor has done extensive re-writes of a number of articles linked to this BLP's area of activism. My concern is that some templates placed (such as WP:OR & WP:SPS have been reverted without being addressed, and I am not interested in an edit war with sole-editor. Suggest this BLP needs eyes on it, as may do other articles connected with this editor in this area. - MishMich - Talk - 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the editor name is Nsw2042. The OII Australia website (written, published and edited by the subject of the BLP) gives the official address as PO Box 46, Newtown, NSW 2042.- MishMich - Talk - 10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP on Jimbo's talk page

User:Mark_Miller claims that it is prohibited to claim a Wikipedian lied and has removed [[16]] such accusations, claiming [[17]] that BLP demands such removal immediately and without discussion, even though I pointed out [[18]] that BLP contains exceptions for "related to making content choices" and "to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community". Immediately and without discussion deleting any statement that someone has lied would make many discussions impossible, and would even prohibit arbcom decisions from being made public. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Claiming Jimbo lied is prohibited in this instance because it was as a public figure in an interview where someone came to his talk page and made a non neutral header making the claim and a comment in the text as well, that was an outright accusation to that figure on his talk page space.

any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

It violates a few different policies, but in this case I saw it exactly as saying X pop star lied about his age and I prove it.....and then not being able to prove it...but then it isn't our place to prove it. If a reliable source actually says that Jimbo Wales lied then go for it and put it in his article. But confronting a Wikipedian about off Wiki activity in a way as to create a humiliating atmosphere...that's bad enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is an important noticeboard where many serious violations should be addressed. It is not a place to discuss whether someone should have mentioned "BLP" while removing an obvious personal attack on a named person. Restoring such a personal attack (an attack with zero evidence by the way) was extremely misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Ken Arromdee (talk · contribs) do anything useful on Wikipedia? Or is it all about stirring the shit on Jimbo's page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Ramsay

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

Content on page continuously refers to same sources; more varied citations needed.

Stevensommer (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Celeste Buckingham

This has to be the worst written article I have every come across, I wouldn't even know where to start editing it. It is rife with run-on, fragmented and nonsensical sentences. For example "Whereas her father, Thomas (born 1954),[51][52] is a Chicago-native[52][53] American with British-Irish origins,[2][17] the relatives of her mother Zarin (born 1961),[51][52] whose ancestry originates partly in Russia, are of Iranian[1][2][51][53] or else Persian[53] descent, for a change.[n. 1]" It's painful to read, please help. Thank you.

Perri "Pebbles" Reid

I need some help or direction with this BLP, please. Full disclosure: we are working on a website for her and are trying to correct a few errors on the biography. For starters, her date of birth. Her correct date of birth is August 29,1964. A previous representative tried to correct the errors but did not follow proper channels and wiki policies. Understandably, an editor had them banned. Please help or point me in the right direction. --Csmgacct (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perri "Pebbles" Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A very quick look at the article talk page suggests that someone tried to edit the article but was unwilling or unable to respond on the article talk page when issues were raised. The first step would be to study the good advice on that talk page and understand that an article has to be encyclopedic in tone (find a softer term than "bankrolled"). Also, details need to be verified (see WP:RS). Do not worry about formatting references—just inserting the URL of a suitable source, or a text description that identifies an article would do. The "Born" section in the infobox is absurd, and if there is a suitable source that would be a good place to start. You could post a suggestion on the article talk page (click "new section" or perhaps "new topic" at the top of Talk:Perri "Pebbles" Reid). Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Magdi Youssef

This is the biography of an academic who is almost absent from google scholar (but much of his work is in non-English languages). Much of the sourcing seems dubious to me (self-description, linkedin, etc.) and almost all of the hyperlinked references are to a local (Cairo) newspaper. There are two long sections which represent his quasi-political views, but much of his academic work seems quasi-political. Adding to the confusion, he's now retired, meaning most of his publications are pre-ubiquitous digital availability. Searching behind paywalls reveals a large body of work, including academic reviews of his books. I think what needs to happen to the article is the trimming of most of the 'A culture critic focused on intercultural studies' and 'Intervention in the Arab, Egyptian, and international debate about globalization and cultural hegemonism' sections and expansion of his list of works section to include references to book reviews of his books. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Klashorst

this article on living persons looks promotional and has no citation provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also the article looks self written in terms of the usage of words "Just as his heroes the poet Arthur Rimbaud and the painter Paul Gauguin he went to Africa full of romantic ideas, but of course the harsh reality of the African city life is no picnic" Article covers content not relevant to the Living Person,

this requires serious review, complete re-look or deletion as the case maybe, even though I would not suggest the latter as the subject does have notability on google search results

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some content, highly detailed, on this article for quite a while regarding several sex scandals that occurred at the school. When I saw it, I removed it all, as I could not see a way to rewrite it. There were three teachers named by name that were discussed in detail, and only one of them ever got any time (and he was not convicted--he plead "nolo"). The other two were either not prosecuted at all or the case was dropped with no conviction. Additionally, the principal was implicated in some professional misconduct in regards to the handling of the case, again with no legal action taken against him.

Apparently, the state's statutory rape law was changed and according to the article, the new law was named after the teacher. All the references are paywalled. An IP has been reverting my removals and has not discussed it at all at the talk page. In fairness neither had I. That has been rectified. I would like someone with more BLP experience than I to take a look at it and give advice on how to proceed. If in fact the law became known by the teacher's name, use of that teacher's name may be appropriate, and some discussion of the events may be appropriate without names. I also feel the length of the section is quite WP:UNDUE, and the use of faculty names is also discouraged in school article guidelines. Not looking for sanctions for anyone, just some help. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A number of potentially useful non-paywalled reliable sources covered the Carlson case, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and local media. There was a notable dispute between law enforcement and the school district over the investigation of the case, culminating in lawsuits. These sources satisfy the BLP side of the equation, although I think you're absolutely right to also be concerned about undue weight and the volume and tone of coverage. It's a tricky issue. MastCell ^Talk 17:20r2g015, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That solves the BLP issue on Carlson. It does not on the others named. We have no source stating anyone has been convicted of anything. I agree that since Carlson had the law named after him, privacy is moot. But the other teachers who were convicted of nothing? And another IP has put it back in. Would going to RPP until this can be hashed out appropriate? John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In other places we have solved this by having a separate article about the scandal. For example Marylands School and Sexual abuse scandal at Marylands School, Christchurch. The the scandal isn't notable enough for it's own article, there's probably no need to cover it. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial posting about the sex scandals years ago was short. Over time, it has become larger because many former students and teachers added details about the crime, the law being added, etc. The scandal actually started decades before the teachers were caught and affected far more people than the media ever reported. It doesn't violate any rule here. Two teachers are named - one had a law named after him, the other was convicted and sent to prison. It was front-page news for years. It's not a small thing to be swept under the rug, much less deleted wholesale from the entry. 97.124.238.87 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other teacher WAS convicted and went to prison for five years. The contention that the article names "other teachers who were convicted of nothing" is totally erroneous. A guilty plea is a conviction, period. 97.124.238.87 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The size of the section is WP:UNDUE. Something should probably be in there about Carlson. The fact that it was a major story locally is not a factor. These kinds of things occur on a rather alarming frequency all over the world. The fact that it was a topic of discussion locally for several years frankly is not at all important. This article is not for the local community, it is for the rest of the world. I would propose trimming it down to one or two sentences in the history section, briefly discussing the high points of the Carlson law and the events that went with it. Reference it well to non-paywalled sources so if a reader is interested in the details they can follow the references. Discussion of the other teachers is simply not appropriate, nor is the discussion of the principal's roll in it. The copy states that one teacher was not charged with anything, and the other one plead no contest. Neither of those is a conviction despite how your personal feeling about it may be. The principal was not charged with anything. This isn't the school's website or a notice board. It is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to summarize the important events in the school's history. We have policies that exist to protect people's privacy, and we have content guidelines to give articles that are edited by many the proper balance for the intended audience, the entire English-speaking world. John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not an attorney because pleading guilty is a conviction, period. If you google "Satch Carlson Law" you will find that it was the model for states nationwide which modified their own laws to reflect the protections that came out of that case. No offense, but you need to do actual research rather than make assumptions. You're in no position to decide that the size is "undue." It's disconcerting that someone is making such an effort to protect child predators by turning a blind eye to fact, case law and a well-annotated history. I'll take this up with someone with more authority. 75.166.131.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Frank Turek

The entire "Controversy" section of this article is written from a biased, non-neutral point of view. The author presents only one side of the controversy regarding Frank Turek's firing by Cisco. The article is, in effect, an attack on Cisco's actions and a contentious appeal in support of Frank Turek. It concludes with "A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce." The author should be informed of the Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP principles and asked to delete or neutralize the "Controversy" section of the article. --KellyArt (Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

James McGibney

I just blocked Dead Goldfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive single-purpose account fixated on belittling a small number of people, chief among whom is James McGibney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't imagine why anybody would dislike Mr. McGibney... oh, well, perhaps I can, but that's no excuse. I would be astounded if the user did not evade the block, please ping me if this happens, and if anyone feels like wading through the mire of the article's history and beating it into some kind of shape, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

sam shepard

Sam Shepard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

wiki should include 1993 movie pelican brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.98.102 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling Lamborghini

Wikipedia is supposed to take care with information about living people, and nephew Fabio and son Tonino are surviving relations of Ferruccio Lamborghini who died in 1993, as is his daughter Patrizia. But the following is taken from a letter to an online car group.

"Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has articles about Ferrucio Lamborghini and Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. that do these subjects justice. However there is a corner of Wikipedia called Wikipedia Reference Desk with its own "Search the archives" box that gets a surprising result. You see it if you type in "Ferraris rival" or "REALLY nice sports car" and see that in each case the first "hit" talks about a "Lamborgini" - yes, it is mispelled like that. A closer look shows the misspelling is endemic to the Desk, going back to 2008.

misspellings

Wikipedia is supposed to maintain reliably sourced information, and one need not look further than the badge on each of our cars to get the spelling right. It's LAMBORGHINI with an "H"!

Incredibly, the rules enforced by Administrators of the Wikipedia Ref. Desk prevent the misspelling (which I feel is offensive to the Lamborghini family) being corrected or even questioned! Attempts to draw attention to the correct spelling have been abruptly deleted by them in order to leave the wrong spelling unchallenged." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a misspelled name in ancient reference desk archives isn't even remotely a concern of this noticeboard. Find somewhere else to engage in necrophilic nit-picking nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy with which this noticeboard is concerned applies both to mainspace articles and talk pages. Necrophilia is not a term relevant to biographic errors about living persons. Tonino Lamborghini and Patrizia né Lamborghini are both mentioned in Wikipedia. The spelling error has been reported outside Wikipedia so the way in which it is handled is already in public view. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The members of the "online car group" need to get a real life. Three "endemic" talk page postings misspelling the car's name is not a BLP issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Clark

WP:BLP applies everywhere, even in draft space, and Draft:Steve Clark seems to be an extreme example of why this is necessary. This article is purportedly about a man "Best known for foundering NPI Research Development Inc with more than 425 subsidiary domestic and international corporations", who supposedly owns "7,782 USA Patents in the combine fields of Mechanical, Electrical and Software Engineering" and "9,522 industrial publications in all disciplines of engineering, business and finance", and supposedly has a net worth of "(US $17.3) billion dollars"; and yet, not one of the purported sources for any of this checks out, and as far as I could find there aren't any. And then the page goes on with long sections about the subject's "Personal life" and "News Tabloid Scandals" including alleged personal financial details, child custody issues, and sexual abuse allegations, all of which (if not entirely fictional) involve other persons (including children), complete with copies of letters from lawyers.

As one can see from the edit history, this article was created in Wikipedia space in November 2013 (with very different content), then became the subject of numerous edits 11 days ago that have changed the content repeatedly. On February 7 another editor started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sir Steven Clark PhD, primarily on the ground that the article was in the wrong edit space, but also noting that the sources don't support the content and suggesting it might be a hoax. Others have expressed similar concerns on the talk page. The article was finally moved to draft space today, but the contentious and unsupported content is still there. I placed some tags on the article to make these concerns clearer,[19] but another editor removed the tags, on the ground that the article is a "work in process".[20]

More leeway is appropriate in draft space, but there are limits. At this point, review and opinions from other editors would be helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the files need to be deleted with fire, for starters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Blow it up! -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Prada gender discrimination case and related articles

• Prada gender discrimination case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rina Bovrisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was originally reported to WP:EAR#Help, and while both NeilN and I have taken a rather quick run-through of the first article and removed some of the more egregious WP:NPOV issues, I think there are some significant BLP issues remaining that need a more careful touch to address. Specifically, in the first article, the Background section makes multiple statements, sourced mostly to prominent blogs like Salon and Huffington Post, attributing quotations to adverse parties in the lawsuits as fact (rather than allegations). I'm really not sure how to handle it at this point; I'm of a mind to just take an axe to the whole section, but I really don't think there'd be anything left, and given the coverage it's gotten, I don't think AfD is the right place for this.

As to the Bovrisse article, I've only taken a brief look at it, but it smacks of puffery on the same level as the first article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)

Recently information was edited [21] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [22]. It is reportedly statements by two named individuals responding to questions about their alleged actions (with no factual basis, I might add) that, if true, would be an immense scandal and ruin their reputations. I'm in the process of discussing this with experienced editors. It appears likely that once reliability is sorted out, I will discuss the topic here. Poorly sourced information that could damage people's reputations should be removed until a consensus is reached. The information is poorly sourced because it has been cited and wikilinked to The Washington Post newspaper when in fact it was on their WP:NEWSBLOG entitled The Switch and published by that organization. The page has since been placed under Semi-protection and Pending changes protection to prevent my repeated attempts to remove the material pending consensus. Could someone please remove the material for the time being? 92.78.115.171 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The RSN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_blog_at_Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also see lengthy talk page thread. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that this discussion be closed as not within the scope of this noticeboard.

The statements

"One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more similar to a research grant."

and

"Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the US federal government, the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users."

are not by the wildest stretch of the imagination statements that are "an immense scandal" or that would "ruin their reputations." The IP-hopping user, having been blocked from edit warring on the page, is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, having the misguided opinion that "BLP" is a magic word that allows you to have your way in any content dispute. By my count five editors, two of them administrators, have rejected the claims of a BLP violation, and zero editors has supported the IP-hopping user on this.

Whether reliable sources confirm those individuals actually said that is a legitimate question, and belongs on the reliable sources noticeboard, where it is already being discussed. . There is no BLP violation here and thus nothing for this noticeboard to address. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. I did not even bring the matter before the reliable sources notice board. What I brought up is outside the scope of reliable sourcing. There are multiple issues affecting the inclusion of the material. I have maintained from the very beginning of the discussion that the primary issue was bringing the integrity of two people into question without a factual basis for doing so. All I'm requesting is a temporary removal of the contentious content while we discuss it. Since the RS issue is already underway, once we reach a consensus about the quality of the source, I'll then look for consensus here about using a source of that quality on Wikipedia to implicate people.

This material has been erroneously cited and hyperlinked to The Washington Post newspaper, when in fact it is the publisher of the source, which is The Switch. The web citation documentation states:

Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).

It's important that it not be wikilinked to the newspaper, as this material did not appear in it. The relevant Wikipedia article is Graham Holdings Company, but it's probably not relevant enough to wikilink. I fear that some other "reliable source" will say something to the effect of, "Even Wikipedia editors pointed to a Washington Post article which said, insert egregiously out of context misquote here."

Guy Macon, as for your often repeated efforts to talk about "what happened", again, your facts are distorted. I would appreciate it if you let me give my own opinions rather than reading your interpretation of them. (Oh the irony, considering the content in question.) Only you and another editor have contested the BLP issue. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And yes, if it were true these two would not even be able to continue their work, which would affect millions of people. I would go into detail except I read the statement at the top of this noticeboard instructing us not to post the details here. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

An article about Leslie Cornfeld existed from 2006 through 2013. A little over a month ago the user who moved the page to a draft created a discussion here on the noticeboard to which I replied with a list of third party references for potential use on the draft or eventual article. I also reached out several times to the editor who moved the page to a draft with the references, but received no response.

I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld ask that some volunteers consider incorporating the following third party sources to the draft and moving it back to an article page. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I would like to refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so.

Career:

• Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair: [23]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [24]
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [25]
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [26]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York City schools: [27]
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [28]
• Cornfeld mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [29]
• Cornfeld once again mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [30]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1994: [31]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Daily News as an attorney, 1997: [32]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as assistant United States attorney in Brooklyn, 1999: [33]
• Cornfeld was a speaker at the first annual "Building a Grad Nation Summit," 2011: [34]
• Cornfeld speaking on "Social and Educational Equity:Three Exciting New Campaigns" panel at The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (video), 2012: [35]
• Cornfeld speaking on The Mayor's Interagency Task Force on American Graduate Day (video), 2012: [36]

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund: [37]
• Hospital for Special Surgery: [38]
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinaSpezz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Typically, an article is created by adding notable info, then sourcing it to something. References shouldn't exist apart from a fact they back up. Then it starts to look more like a scrapbook or link directory, not an encyclopedia. Is there particular info you'd like in the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

The whole "Articles and Reports" section of the draft is rather hollow, without any context for why these news stories matter to the subject. Try paraphrasing and summarizing the most important parts from each. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Katsanevas

Given this WMF blog post, I've created Theodore Katsanevas. I will shortly ask one or other of our Greek colleagues to add the Greek-language references referred to in the blog post. No doubt it would be sensible for extra eyes to be watching the new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Knox article ' Public image' section

I deleted it twice, because it is basically reporting that a men's mag rated her as sexy, and that a comedian joked about whether men want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model or actress celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this kind of stuff on a page about them. But AK is none of those things. It's been put back by User:BabbaQ. I think the section is intrusive for this subject and I think the section should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not take a stance on if the section is notable or not. What I wanted Overagainst to know was that it is better bringing it up at the articles talk page before removing a whole section of the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)