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.

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 [1] 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)

^ "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. [2]

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)

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.

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)

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)

I have conceded that there should be some mention of Carlson. There remains one teacher in the content that was there that the content stated was not charged with anything. Neither was the principal. That has to go and is appropriate discussion for this forum. I would appreciate some input here as to whether a "nolo" plea is to be considered a conviction for our BLP purposes. And I would appreciate a volunteer here explaining to the IP how to properly conduct himself at noticeboards and in content disputes. Pretty much, the rest of this belongs on the article talk page, where at this point no-one is responding. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 17 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

Block evading sockpuppet Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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,[3] but another editor removed the tags, on the ground that the article is a "work in process".[4]

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)

It appears that all versions of this draft article have now been oversighted. So there is nothing more to be done here, unless somebody wants to bring the article back. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 15 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)

I suggest Miuccia Prada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be added to that list. I just removed a highly misleading quotation [5] where it was suggested the CEO of Prda said

and she has a [sic] black hair naturally... it was disgusting"

which seems to imply he was saying natural black hair is disgusting, but what was actually said per the source in the artice was

"She had her hair bleached blonde ... She is Japanese, and she has a [sic] black hair naturally ...She wore something different from Prada's brand image, she didn't care for her hairstyle...She didn't take care of her blonde hair and it was obvious, it was disgusting."

This was still contentious since amongst other things, as per the source, the Bovrisse hair is actually naturally brown not black and was evidentally not bleached while she was working for Prada but what our article implied was clearly very different from what was actually said.

Edit: I've now removed the entire sectionparagraph as it had little to do with Prada herself. It was a statement by the Prada Japan CEO which our article sort of implied but either way I don't see how it's sufficiently relevant for the article on Miuccia Prada

Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now removed the entire section as from what I can tell, none of the sources mention Miuccia herself. Considering her high level involvement in the company (although the case appears to concern the Japanese division), there may be merit to mention the case in her article briefly, but it will need much better sources and I'm having trouble finding any. [6] mentions the case, but only to say she wasn't implicated in it. [7] briefly mention her and the discrimination case, but only in a fairly roundabout way. [8] is not bad, except it's only an interview with Rina Bovrisse where a suggestion is made of Miuccia's involvement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. the Miuccia Prada article definitely needs a read-through. As to Bovrisse, I just stripped out a massive section consisting of little more than links to media coverage of the legal case. Definite WP:IINFO case. The article needs more work though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)

Recently information was edited [9] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [10]. 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)

Your claims of a BLP violation have been evaluated and rejected by multiple editors and administrators, and you have yet to convince a single editor to support you. We are not going to remove the material, even temporarily, based on imaginary BLP issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For the third time in a row, it is sourced to The Washington Post newspaper when it actually appeared on The Switch blog on their website, making it poorly sourced. It brings the opinion of the author concerning whether or not the two named people engaged in scandalous activity into the article. From WP:BLP, "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. I can understand disagreeing with the merit of the dispute, and to a smaller degree not wanting to wait to get the juicy tidbit out in the open quickly without waiting for a real consesus, but not even wanting to repair the citation (You can fix the red link while you're at it.) is what I find most astonishing. As to your claim of a multitude of rejections, show me. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, please show me on Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network) and not here. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The citation now reads as: Fung, Brian. "The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?" Washington Post's The Switch. So end of BLP issue? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat it:

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).

This work is not called "Washington Post's The Switch". It says not to use the publishing company for the name of the work. Do you think it's important that it be in there somehow? Its misleading because The Washington Post is a newspaper and even that wikilink leads to an article about the newspaper. I don't see a reason to wikilink the publishing company in this case, but the link is Graham Holdings Company. My current recommendation is:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/ |title=The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it? |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=6 September 2013 |website=The Switch |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=6 February 2014}}</ref>

If you want to wikilink the publisher, then I recommend:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/ |title=The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it? |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=6 September 2013 |website=The Switch |publisher=[[Graham Holdings Company|The Washington Post Company]] |accessdate=6 February 2014}}</ref>

Please note WP:NEWSBLOG which states "...use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Caution, at a bare minimum, includes trying to get the citation right, and frankly I don't see why I'm getting so much pushback on this one simple thing. Do you have a more relevant citation template? I'll leave the appropriateness of removing the material while we determine its usability up to the experts here. The other BLP issue is about whether or not we should use the material at all, which of course won't be fixed by merely citing it correctly. I want to reach a consensus at WP:RSNB, where you brought up the issue, on the overall quality of this source and then bring that, along with the rest of my argument, here. Is that reasonable? I'll be away from the net for a couple of days. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question before I disappear for a while, how do we discuss the issues without posting what was said here, or am I doing it wrong? 94.222.99.19 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about RELIABLE SOURCES on the BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is for ... wait for it ... discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for ... wait for it ... wait for it ... discussing violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (which, I remind you, does not exist in this case other than in your fevered imagination).

The fact that you appear to be unable to understand this basic concept is either a WP:COMPETENCE problem or an WP:IDHT problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to discuss are allegations about people written into a Wikipedia article. In this case, it takes the form of rephrasing a quote to insert the allegation. If the allegation is that Joe eats bananas, it can be expressed, for example, as a:

• statement: Joe eats bananas.
• loaded question: Does Joe still eat bananas?
• straight question: Does Joe eat bananas?
• insinuation: I can't prove that Joe eats bananas.
• denial: Joe said he doesn't eat bananas.
• dodge: Joe said he may or may not eat bananas.

This source says that there is no proof of the allegation. Allegations without evidence are rumor or speculation and should not be written into a Wikipedia article about named individuals in any form whatsoever. Either find reliable sources backing up the claim or leave it out of the article. Note that this reasoning is independent of the reliability of the source. The material been interpreted on Wikipedia as being both a flat denial and an evasive answer. 89.101.247.110 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of

"The reliable sources noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for discussing violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (which do not exist in this case)."

are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP, very first infobox sentence, "If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard." Lead section, "Such material...must adhere strictly to...Verifiability (V). From WP:V, section 1 WP:CHALLENGE (not section 2 about reliable sources), "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." I think it's misleading not to differentiate the [[WP:NEWSBLOG] entitled The Switch as a separate division from the print edition of The Washington Post, just like sourcing The New York Times Magazine as The New York Times would be. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a real question I have and not about reliability. It's been partially addressed by Rhododendrites.

Rereading what I wrote in support of my BLP claims not being "imaginary", I can see where you might be thinking that "This source says that there is no proof of the allegation" meant that I was questioning the reliability of the source. I wasn't. A perfectly reliable source can include in their argument, "So far there's no hard evidence that..." insert sensational claim here. Insert named individual here wrote insert denial of shocking behavior here. My question here is, if the source itself said that there isn't evidence to support the accusation, how can it be on Wikipedia in any form without another reliable source that has some evidence? If would be a major news story if evidence of those activities became public, and finding sources wouldn't be a problem. It certainly isn't the prevailing view now, and if this became a widely-believed rumor it would damage the ability of the named people to carry out their life's work. 89.101.247.110 (talk) 11:50, 19 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: [11]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [12]
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [13]
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [14]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York City schools: [15]
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [16]
• Cornfeld mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [17]
• Cornfeld once again mentioned in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1993: [18]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as Deputy Chief Counsel of the New York City Commission, 1994: [19]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Daily News as an attorney, 1997: [20]
• Cornfeld quoted in New York Times as assistant United States attorney in Brooklyn, 1999: [21]
• Cornfeld was a speaker at the first annual "Building a Grad Nation Summit," 2011: [22]
• 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: [23]
• Cornfeld speaking on The Mayor's Interagency Task Force on American Graduate Day (video), 2012: [24]

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund: [25]
• Hospital for Special Surgery: [26]
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [27] — 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)

First, my apologies to user NinaSpezz (talk) for being slow to respond to her messages to me, so that she has had to come here, as it were, unescorted.

Background: an article about Leslie Cornfeld existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a résumé. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article posted on my talk page a request to restore it. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her not to edit it directly, but to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

NinaSpezz (talk), acting for Ms Cornfeld with an openly-declared COI, has now provided a number of references, which I have listed at Draft talk:Leslie Cornfeld. The great majority of them are quotes from Ms Cornfeld, reports of her speaking, or brief mentions of her being involved in some activity, and help with verification of her career but not with notability; but nos. 1 and 15 are more substantial, and I think an acceptable article could be made.

Being administratively involved, I do not want to rewrite this article myself, and I would be grateful if someone experienced could update it. More detail can be found in the versions in the history before my revert. I might then reverse my AfD close, but would more likely take it to DRV for a community view. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 17 February 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)

You put it back in one hour after I took it out. Your edit summary:"excuse me but this is not "your" article per say. take it to the talk page. which i gues you should know by now. Thanks" So that is your stance. You said I was 'not the owner' of article and I had to discuss in talk. But as anyone can see it I had complained about it in talk 10 hours before and no-one had disagreed. Anyway, the essential point is it is not encyclopedic content about her 'Media image', and is intrusive for this subject. It should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem more interested in "being right" than actually having a mature discussion. But hey that is your decision to not being able to handle having to discuss removing an entire section. Good to know.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, complaining why? And 10-hours? Its not long enough and you should always wait for more input. You will see at the Knox talk page what I think and I am no longer involved in that discussion. You will have to wiki-fight with the others instead. bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you accuse Overagainst of article ownership but you have displayed ownership yourself in this issue.

I think the sexiness stuff was given WP:Undue emphasis until the removals by Overagainst. This issue should have the briefest mention, with no particular details. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have not done such a thing. I have said that I though a consensus was needed before the entire section was removed. User Overagainst pushed me for an answer about my opinion about it. And when I said it I was basically told that my opinion does not count and I have no idea what I am doing. So please get your facts straight. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the section to do with its ostensible purport. The article already says she was very well known and specifies the nature of the publicity as a result of the court case being sexual in nature. The section eliminates the specifics of the sexual nature of what was said about her and says she was a big personalty " an Italian television poll listed Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni.[73] Barbara Walters named her as one of the ten most fascinating people of 2011". And this is after it has been mentioned that her family hired a PR firm. So the section is actually in counterpoint to the pre-trial publicity section, which made clear the reality of how she was portrayed consisted of widespread publicity about "unsubstantiated details of Knox's sex life".

Now a piece of gossip about money from a book deal states in Wikipedia's voice "Knox signed a book deal worth US$4 million. The source actually just says "The deal is reportedly worth $4m". Such gossip about financial details, given the context, and without mention that her book advance may barely defray the legal and other fees incurred in her defense, is negative. This section is intrusive and misleading about the living subject's personal life and finances, and is functioning as a WP:COATRACK.Overagainst (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A book deal is a notable event, as you can see by the many sources that reported it. I have added reported in the press to be worth 4 million in an attempt to alleviate your concern in regards to the book deal detail. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Any author gets an advance, so it is no more notable that she did than that, according to her (on September 15, 2013)" Of the $3.8 million received, I carefully dispersed it where it was due: to taxes, to my lawyers, to my family so they no longer had mortgages at stake. Part of it went in fees to my agent, part of it in fees to my collaborator. At this moment, I am negotiating the last of it with my lawyers in Italy for the latest legal fees. [...]If not for the book deal, I could have been facing a lifetime of financial burden of having to pay for a defense that could still stretch for years more. After a year, I do not know what I’m going to do. So at this very moment, I have planned and negotiated and made possible, with everything I can manage, for a year. After that I’m reliant on my parents again". You want to include how much she got but not that it's gone and she still has to appeal to the supreme court, and pay fees for the lawyers who represent her at yet another trial. So Wikipedia is your newspaper for publishing partial information about the ongoing lives of people famous for one event is it? Enough._Overagainst (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

She signed a book deal, reported notable event, simple, as for what she did with the monies, if you think the details of that are notable and have been reported then feel free to add them. Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It was reported, that makes it news, but not notable. If she'd came out a million ahead, or there was any reason to think that (like her buying houses and cars) maybe it would be notable. But back in reality Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and she is broke so there is no notability. Even if you disagree with that, you can't add one side of the story and then play the innocent about the impression that you're creating that she is millions up on this thing. It's on you to make your edits notable enough to be in an encyclopedic article, in summary style, and NPOV ._Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact was widely reported in reliable sources, a book deal for millions of dollars is notable, whether she is ahead or not is irrelevant to the basic notability of the book deal, if it is notable that she is behind then feel free add the content Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is right about this. Overagainst I find your way to handle discussions to be beneath you to be honest. It is very strange witnessing a user basically saying "You are wrong and you do not even have the right to have an opinion about this article because you see it as your own newspaper". Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondly I really do not have an interest in being part of this discussions further as I can see that some huge egos are at play. Remove it for all I care if that makes you Overagainst sleep better tonight. Or if for anything stopping you from a heartattack :) These discussions are perhaps at some users level but is simply not my cup of tea :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a very good argument for there not being an article on Amanda Knox, since it serve mainly to duplicate the "Murder" article. But we have one, and the only conceivable justification for it is that it can include information about Knox that is too trivial/tangential to include in the main article. It doesn't, therefore, make sense to sense to talk about structuring the article so that trivial/tangential information is excluded. There's certainly no BLP violation here. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean adding trivial information to BLP's is NOT a violation of WP:Notability or WP:Undue? Jodon | Talk 13:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be a violation of UNDUE, all depending, but something being trivial is not in itself a violation of BLP. Formerip (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That explains the contention here regarding inclusion/deletion. Either BLP is an exception to the rules Wikipedia itself has laid down (triviality allowed specifically on BLP articles only), or it contradicts itself (triviality is not allowed, but lets break the rule anyway). How does Wikipedia gauge levels of triviality or is this at the discretion of each individual editor to make his/her case? If its the latter this again would explain the contention. But it does mean such entries would be disputed ad infinitum. Jodon | Talk 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion seems to be section stays, trivia out on grounds WP:Undue, and balance mention of $3.8 mil advance with brief summary of what she said about it having gone to pay back debts incurred for her defense.Overagainst (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Z Berg

The article Z Berg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at the wrong title for most of its life. It has three sources, all trivial, none independent. If anyone cares deeply about this article could they please add sources? Otherwise I will redirect it. Unsourced biographies are, as we all know, a minefield. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm doing some work on it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm B. Frost

Malcolm B. Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP was created by Afrosty (talk · contribs), and they seem to admit they have a COI [28].

I told Afrosty that, per WP:COS, You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. [29]

An administrator Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) told Afrosty to continue editing it. I questioned that, but the admin is adamant - saying, "I am happy to let him edit the article directly". [30]

I am not sure how to resolve this issue, because it seems clear to me that the behavioural guideline says Afrosty should not edit the article, but Buckshot06 is disregarding it. I've already tried to resolve it on Buckshot06 talk page, but seem to have reached an impasse. Hence, asking for help here.

Thanks in anticipation, 88.104.19.233 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou 88.104.19.233 for your notification. My line has been to focus on what will be the end result: either an article which meets wikipedia's standards (I've got good experience of this, as I've created two FAs in my time) or an article which I will make sure is deleted. Afrosty is happy to let me mentor him to improve this article, and because he has the specialist data to add to the article, including references, I'm happy to let him do so in order to gradually improve the article. If the article doesn't reach the standard, or if he become obstructive, then I'll nominate it for deletion myself. At present, that necessity seems vastly unlikely. I would respectfully request the community to let me manage this article's development for a while, and mentor Afrosty, in the interests of the long-term development of the encyclopedia. Driving Afrosty away, rather than mentor him in the hope that he will become a competent editor on wider issues, doesn't serve the purpose of increasing rather than decreasing our editor base. Thus I would like to invoke WP:IAR for a while, in the furtherance of this process. Should the community so wish, this article and new editor can always be further reviewed at any later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that this is appropriate use of IAR, because in mentoring that user, you are teaching them that it is OK to breach guidelines.

Consensus has decided that it is a bad idea for COR editors to edit articles directly.

Instead, you could show them the correct, policy-based way to contribute.

You are applying IAR for a short-term case, but a) they might continue to edit this article for years - and an admin has said it is OK, and b) they and their friends, and anyone else seeing this discussion would see an admin saying it was OK for COI editors to edit BLPs.

I could write much more about this, but if debates get long, they tend to become boring and pointless.

Bottom line: consensus says, people with very close connections shouldn't edit BLPs. I see no reason why this one is 'special'. So please will you adhere to WP:BESTCOI, and instruct the user to not directly edit the article? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to punish Afrosty as an example to others, to warn them not to create articles about their family. Wikipedia does not purposely punish editors. Instead, Wikipedia ideally guides such editors into constructive and collaborative pathways. We are not going to put Afrosty's head on a spike outside the city gate to show others that this kind of thing is not tolerated.

The guideline BESTCOI does not bar a COI editor from editing an involved BLP, as you state incorrectly. Rather, the guideline says "Avoid making controversial edits to articles related to your associations." Non-controversial edits are fine.

On the positive side, the cleanup work you have been doing to the biography is generally good. My only complaint is that an article improvement template asking for better references for one section might be better than a half dozen templates scattered throughout that section. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit!

WP:COS is absolutely clear.

I assume you can read the link, so I will not repeat it here.

Why are we not enforcing that behavioral guideline?

Even if you do not agree with that, surely you can't argue with consensus on COI - COI editing is strongly discouraged.

So why is this admin encouraging it? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you (and others) will probably not read it, so I'll quote;

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics.

Going outside that is IAR, and I don't think it is an appropriate use of IAR.

Instructing a new user to break policy/guidelines on BLPs is not a good idea. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart_Semple

Wanted to confirm an update is within the rules: A controversy section have been added to Stuart_Semple regarding a newspaper report of the individual not paying staff. It quotes the newspaper article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

An entire section based on a single newspaper report seems undue to me. Also per WP:CSECTION, we discourage the creation of separate 'controversy' sections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semple's explanation, however, needs to be there. Collect (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two more blog posts from one person on the subject. There is also a statement from him. would linking, would that be enough? If There is no controversy section, where is best to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Norman Carlson and Francis Mulhern

If anyone has the time, Norman Carlson and Francis J. Mulhern could use a lot of work; both are listed at List of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership recipients. Thanks, – Connormah (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Substantial (rapper)

Substantial (rapper) is now weakly sourced was horrendously weakly sourced. I trimmed down a bit, but it still has a facebook link and no actually strong RS sources for much of anything. Is he even remotely notable? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the basic claim of notability seems to be related to his work in Japan, so I would think that we'd need some good Japanese sources for that. Certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO based on English-language sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Edwards (sportscaster)

I was hoping someone could give some attention to a situation on this article Jack Edwards (sportscaster). There's been a slow motion edit war going back at least two months. Cliff note version, sportscaster criticized opposing player. Sportscaster was criticized for what he said. Sportscaster appologizes. One side thinks this is important to have in the article. The other thinks it's a minor incident unworthy of inclusion. Every few days it gets reverted from one version to the other. I am not neutral in this area, (Not real COI, just due to being a fan of one team). I won't add any other opinion except hopefully the article can be stabilized either in or out. thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Litchenberg

Being at work I don't really have time to look in to this, but following an ANI report (the situation got ugly with legal threats), I think it's prudent to have this noticeboard take a look at the Litchenberg article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Miranda and Elytte Barbour

Newly accused/admitted murderers. Probably on the edge of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME could use additional eyes as the story gets wider circulation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Important to distinguish the two. Only one has claimed to be responsible for multiple murders and those claims have not been substantiated by investigators. If true, we'll have to split the article. They would not both belong in "serial killer" categories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Defender miz

• Defender miz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History of creating unreferenced BLPs and adding unsourced information to articles. Multiple warnings by different editors to user's talk page, with no response from user.

I started two AFDs for unreferenced BLPs created by the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Thost and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Preis.

Would appreciate attention from editors here as well.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Problematic edit history includes prior creation of a hoax article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe. — Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See also the deletion history of Rebecca Frasier and the multiple related warnings about that at User talk:Defender miz, I can't see the deleted history but it looks like the user may have re-created the page after deletion. — Cirt (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Achal Prabhala

I would like to bring to your attention a strange delate process which happened with the article of Achal Prabhala, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achal Prabhala (2nd nomination). My impression is that the discussion goes beyond the article and the notability of this person. I have met Prabhala at Wikimania and – working on African-related topics – I exchanged and discussed with him; I don't specifically like him, but I have worked on his article and from sources he seems defiantly notable. It would be healthy if someone else not linked to this person can check what has happened and if his article really does not meet the relevant requirements. thank you! --Iopensa (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jahi McMath—How do we handle someone whose death is contested?

Jahi McMath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background: Jahi McMath underwent a surgical procedure in late 2013, suffered complications which included a bleed and a period of cardiac arrest, during which her brain was not oxygenated. Subsequently, she was declared brain-dead by the hospital's doctors. Her family disagreed and fought the determination in court, which may have failed (the article seems to indicate that the trial court found against the family). McMath has been declared legally dead, but her body is still on life support.

Issue: There's an ongoing dispute over whether to describe McMath as living or deceased, and perhaps more seriously, whether McMath should be described in the past or present tense. That is, "Jahi McMath is ..." versus "Jahi McMath was ..." WP:BLP applies: if McMath is dead, she's recently deceased and still within the scope of WP:BLP. While my normal recommendation would be to discuss the dispute, there are two problems. First, how do we handle the tense issue? I don't think "creative wording" will work satisfactorily. Second, I'm not sure there are sources yet on this specific case that adequately discuss the dispute over whether McMath should be described as living or dead. There might be more general sources, but I'm not sure those could be invoked without running afoul of WP:SYN.

One solution suggested is "is/was", which I don't particularly like. An explanatory footnote probably wouldn't resolve the dispute either. My personal opinion is that we're well within WP:NOTNEWS territory, indicating that deletion might be appropriate, but that still doesn't really resolve the dispute. Opinions are welcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting example of how to handle something like this is the article on Lord Lucan. The opening paragraph nicely side-steps the alive or dead issue completely by the way it is worded and then explores the issue in more detail later. So perhaps in this case careful phrasing may do the job too? Shritwod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this approach could work here if the opening paragraph was changed to read something like: "Jahi McMath (May 26, 2000 – December 12, 2013) was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." This change would sidestep the issue although I don't know if this change conforms to style guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a FA that manages to avoid a similar problem. Well, color me impressed. Maybe clever wording can be used to avoid the issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of points of clarification. The court ruled that McMath's body could remain on a ventilator until January 7. McMath's family removed the body from the hospital on January 5, before a previously scheduled trial could take place, so no further rulings were made on whether removing mechanical ventilation violated the family's freedom of religion and privacy, as their lawyer claimed. (Citations on these points are in the article.) As to whether McMath's body is still on a ventilator, no reliable, independent sources have documented the body's condition nor whereabouts since January 5. Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Jahi is not dead would seem to be a fringe theory. That does not mean I would not treat the article with extraordinary sensitivity - but BLP does not require us to ignore an avalanche of medical and legal evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the Lord Lucan style being used but the editor who continues to undo/edit-war and revert has shown that they do not approve. How about saying, "(born... declared death...) in this case adding the modifier "declared" "Legally declared", or even "brain-death" or any other modifier to signify the circumstances?24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth or mischaracterize my actions. I would disagree that this case is similar to Lord Lucan and agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that the position that McMath was alive after December 12 is a fringe theory. However, in the interest of compromise I would support removing both the birth and death dates from the article and infobox and phrase the lede as suggested by Ca2james above, minus the dates: "Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead following post-operative complications from medical procedures aimed at relieving symptoms from sleep apnea. On January 3, 2014, the Alameda County coroner’s office issued a death certificate for McMath with a date of December 12, 2013. A cause of death was not included pending an autopsy." Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Maybe making sure that her age at the time she entered the hospital or some other reference to her age is in the article somewhere. It is not a perfect solution, but it would help make the article more neutral. And sorry Funcrunch-didn't want to speak for you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely do not believe we should remove the birth/death dates. Noting that she was declared brain-dead is fine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the only way you're going to get a compromise, and doing so harms nothing. Just mention the DOB and date when declared brain-dead later in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, then this is not an acceptable "compromise" and doing so is an unacceptable concession to a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's your position, NorthBySouthBaranof, I propose you are the one being unreasonable. Rephrasing the lead so as to not give credit to either side is not giving an endorsement to a fringe theory, and attempting to paint it as some huge concession is patently hogwash. I further propose that a consensus is emerging here that the article be reworked to reflect that consensus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "giving credit." NPOV does not require some fantastical notion of "equal time" or "balance" - it requires that we balance competing viewpoints in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. Far and away, the reliable sources in this case describe McMath as dead. Therefore, that is the viewpoint which must predominate within the article. Her family's claims to the contrary are notable, but they are not controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about removing the birth and death dates from the text of the article, or from the info box at the top, or both? As long as the dates remain in the article somewhere - as in the info box - I support this compromise.Ca2james (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that the article has been renamed to clarify that it is not a biography, it makes sense to me to remove the infobox. The article as it currently stands states the girl's age and date of death, and her nationality and parents' names aren't really relevant. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the retention of the infobox, as per the precedent of Terri Schiavo case, after which this article has been renamed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Liezl van Zyl

This person has been proven to be a false identity created by wiki user solarhyper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.92.130 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I have nominated it for deletion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So the Sportspulse interview is a fake?--ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am probably going to say that it is, or at least say some elements of it are fictional. There's no mention of this person on the internet outside of Wikipedia and that interview, and there are no sources which state she has competed at a game - the interview claims she has won dozens of awards and yet the rest of the internet is silent. Even if she is real, she is most likely non-notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Having done some digging into the history of Swimming at the 2007 All-Africa Games and Swimming at the 2011 All-Africa Games, I am inclined to agree with you. I have undone some longstanding vandalism substituting her name for a couple of medal winners. Looks like Sportspulse was duped too.--ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fatemeh Shams

Fatemeh Shams is a contemporary prize-winning Iranian poet and literary scholar based in Oxford University. She was born in Khorasan, Mashhad in 1983 and completed her studies in the field of sociology and literature after winning the silver medal in national Olympiad of literature in 2000. As a censored voice in Iran, Fatemeh, published her first book of poetry in Berlin, Germany in 2013 under the title of "88". The book contains socially and politically avant-garde poems that are mostly written in exile and echo the sense of displacement and diaspora. Fatemeh won Jaleh Esfahani poetry prize for the best young Persian poet in 2012. Her work has received scholarly attention by some of the leading literary critics and translators such as Dr. Ahmad Karimi Hakkak and her poems have been translated and published in other languages including English and Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodnaderi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussions concerning issues relating to living persons in existing Wikipedia articles only. If you wish to create an article on Fatemeh Shams, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cara Delevingne

Hi, I could use some help with this please. Even the more reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and The Telegraph are quoting another party (other than the subject) in the Daily Mirror tabloid which is not a reliable source. HelenOnline 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also here in Michelle Rodriguez. HelenOnline 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Valls

Manuel Valls is Minister of the Interior for France. He has recently undertaken an effort to ban anti-Semitic performances by comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. User:Blaue_Max has thus changed the sentence "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with Scandinavian-style Social Democracy and Blairism" to "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with the state of Israel" twice, and this is still in the article.[31][32] He has also introduced his own negative opinions of Valls into the article, referencing YouTube videos that are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.169.109.224 (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arseniy Yatsenyuk

In recent edits, someone has added uncited text claiming a connection of Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Scientology. As the claimed reference amounts to "some guy in Russia said this" in a BLP article, the text should go pending any better cites. Since a blogger quoted this text the day it was added, I'm inclined to think it was the blogger himself who made the edit. As I am broadly blocked from editing any Scientology-related articles (even bogus connections), I'm bringing it here rather than removing myself. AndroidCat (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it. The source doesn't seem to show up at all in Google, the name mentioned DOES, but in multiple places, so, no telling who the source is, no way was that reliable in any fashion. I'll place a note on the talk page as well.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. AndroidCat (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edoardo Costa

Edoardo Costa, both in English and Italian has a potentially libelous section referring to an ongoing legal issue that is poorly cited from questionable sources (tabloid and gossip sites). The English version of the section appears to have been translated with poor results by an online translator, rather than a native speaker. The sections are replaced once removed, even while citing BLP guidelines on both versions of the page. The claims made on the page are rather serious and defamatory. The issue can be seen here.

Sharon Needles

Sharon Needles Controversy section is unverifiable, the sources do not link to any existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi

An editor seems to be on a vendetta against this person, using extremely insulting language on the talk page. I request fresh eyes on the article, and comments by someone willing to explain BLP policies. I had a previous disagreement with this editor, so perhaps I am not best for the job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

William E. Lori

Joeschultz22000 (talk · contribs) has been adding unreferenced and poorly-referenced BLP-violating material to William E. Lori. I am now at 3 reverts. Per WP:3RR, I am taking the report here for more eyeballs. Thanks in advance. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Edit war between Indiggo77 (talk · contribs) and 63.247.160.139 (talk · contribs). Indiggo77 is apparently the subject of Indiggo stated here. Indiggo77 is removing content, but providing sources. The anon is removing any additions by Indiggo77. Jim1138 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The "sources" Indiggo77 adds aren't legitimate. For example, they are saying they are American, and providing a youtube video that they made of photos of themselves. Also, User Indiggo77 is actually Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea (collectively, Indiggo) which is not allowed on Wikipedia, right?

I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here or on Jim1138's page. Thanks. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at WP:ANI regarding the confirmed shared COI account, as well as probable sock puppetry. Those issues can be discussed there, the article may be discussed here. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Gary Null

The current Wikipedia page on Gary Null does not reflect a neutral point of view (NPOV). The content is overwhelmingly negative and much of the more disparaging commentary is derived/referenced from a highly prejudicial source: "A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials"[33]. Essentially, the link is an attack page from Quackwatch, authored by an individual, Stephen Barrett, who states that he "has been tracking Gary Null's activities since the mid-1970s". Moreover, Mr. Barrett's article clearly indicates that Mr. Null's attorney has repeatedly advised him to "remove the offensive and libelous material from your website or face legal action."

Earlier today, I made edits to Gary Null's Wikipedia page and introduced biographical content from his Faculty Biography page [34] at Fairleigh Dickinson University with the intent of providing a more rounded perspective on the subject. I also included content that expanded on and clarified Mr. Barrett's involvement in the matter. All of those particular edits were quickly undone. I am relatively new to editing at Wikipedia and would appreciate further guidance in this regard.

Jpsanders (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)