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.

Tor (anonymity network)

Recently information was edited [1] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [2]. 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)

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. You keep ignoring this important fact, and thus I am going to ignore any further comments from you; you are simply repeating the same bad arguments that didn't convince anyone the last five or six times you made them. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Only three editors, two of which are you and I, have commented on the BLP issue. One administrator semi-protected the page giving the reason "persistent vandalism: and edit warring", leading me to think that the admin might not even know about it. Can you show me where anyone other than you, Rhododendrites, and myself have evaluated the BLP claims? And talk about repeating yourself, you've repeated your "multiple editors and administrators" distortion four times now, and whatever tiny number you're talking about doesn't amount to a consensus.

In any case, I really wasn't expecting dead silence from editors not already involved in the content dispute. Is it because I'm unable to provide details about it on this noticeboard? Is it important enough to talk about here? Have I overstated anything even slightly? Is it something else? Isn't anybody here able to answer my questions about this? 89.101.247.110 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit History:

• WhisperToMe made an edit: [3] Unless he indicates otherwise, WhisperToMe counts as someone who supports his own edit and opposes an edit that reverts his edit.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: [4] That's one editor opposing you, zero supporters.
• I reverted you because I could not find the BLP violation: [5] That's two editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: [6]
• Rhododendrites reverted you, could not find any BLP violation [7] That's three editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted without comment. [8]
• I reverted you with the comment "I read all of the comments on the talk page and on the reliable sources noticeboard and found no evidence of any BLP violation, nor can I find any in the deleted material. Restoring": [9]
• You reverted with a strange comment that nobody has been able to figure out: [10]
• Materialscientist reverted you. [11] Note: Materialscientist is an admin. That's four editors opposing you, zero supporters.
• You reverted, claiming a BLP violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tor_%28anonymity_network%29&diff=595121922&oldid=595121263]
• I reverted you. [12] (Note: No 3RR violation on either side because of 24-hour rule)
• I requested page protection because of your edit warring: [13]
• Page protected, protection level chosen to stop you from editing while allowing everyone who reverted you to keep editing: [14] Please note that, in any case where there is a claim of a BLP violation, the protecting admin is required by Wikipedia policy to evaluate the claim and remove any BLP violation before protecting the page. This was not done in this case, because the protecting admin saw no BLP violation.

So four editors have opposed you (yes, the correct number is four -- your count was incorrect), nobody has supported you, and you were blocked from editing the page because you attempted to get your way through edit warring. Despite repeated requests, you have made zero attempts to explain why you imagine that a BLP violation exists when nobody else sees one. It is still a mystery why you think that. BTW, nobody is bothering to respond to you because blocking you from editing he page solved the problem. I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not the place for it, but I'll (probably stupidly) point out the distortion.

• WhisperToMe - made the edit before I raised the BLP issue and has made no public evaluation or rejection of it. 0-0
• Me - I strongly object to the material being included. 1-0
• Guy Macon - Sees no problem, won't wait for BLP consensus. 1-1
• Rhododendrites - Agrees that the material is okay, but seems willing to compromise. 1-2
• Materialscientist - Reverted with the edit summary "What was that?" clearly in response to my poorly thought out edit summary. I explained in my next edit summary that there was a BLP dispute and Materialscientist has made no other reverts. Has made no pubic comment, and we have no idea what this admin has evaluated or rejected. My idiotic edit summary was because local phone service went out for about a day and I was trying to use the same argument structure as the writer of the source to show how terrible it is. It was dumb and a total fail. 1-2
• Callenecc - Thanks for the tip on WP policy. I placed a note on that admin's talk page and have gotten no response after ten days. It's not clear to me that this admin has read my arguments after the fact, let alone evaluated or rejected them. 1-2

Anyway, all of this "what happened" or who won the straw poll nonsense is sidetracking the discussion here just like the original talk page discussion has been. The disussion on the reliable sources notice board has quieted down, and I'm fairly in agreement with one participating editor, while another has gone from a dissenting view to relative uncertainty. If I can't post details here, where should I present my arguments concerning the usability of the material on BLP grounds? This is a separate request from the one for temporary removal. Please advise; I've been straightforward and the material is quite harmful. 178.8.152.139 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the proper place for dealing with BLP concerns, and of course I could be wrong and you could be right, in which case we definitely want to remove the material -- WP:BLP supersedes pretty much any other Wikipedia policy.

The way you should proceed is to explain, in detail, why you think there is a BLP violation. Seriously. You have done everything but trying to persuade others that you are right. I find this to be incredibly frustrating because I take alleged BLP issues seriously and I really do want you to prevail if there really is a BLP violation.

You are willing to edit war to the point of being blocked. You are willing to spend an inordinate amount of effort getting an exact count of the unanimous consensus against you. You seem perfectly willing to explain your reasoning concerning reliability of sources (on the RS noticeboard -- those arguments do not belong here). Despite all of this, for some inexplicable reason you are completely resistant to the idea of actually arguing your case when it comes to BLP violations. This has been explained to you before.

Go back, start over, start a new section, and this time try to convince someone-- anyone -- that 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, as you claim, "an immense scandal" and something that would "ruin their reputations." WHY do you think that? What is your reasoning? Do you have any theory as to why nobody but you sees any BLP violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Because at the top of this page is "Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. To get into the harm done would require me to repeat the baseless allegations here, and I thought it was self-evident. Apparently not, but I don't presume to know what silent people are thinking, and thus have no theory. I've repeatedly asked where I can present my reasoning without pasting here, which you've done twice now. 94.222.101.42 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I already pasted the passage that you were blocked for repeatedly removing. Good luck with your super-secret imaginary BLP violation that you and you alone can see and which you cannot explain or provide evidence to support. I am unlatching this page now as the colossal waste of time that it is. You can reply if you wish, but I will not see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To anyone else, the material is WP:NOTSCANDAL, scandal mongering section, about named people. How is it not a BLP violation? Once again, how can I discuss this in detail and where? 94.222.101.42 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the instruction was actually red colored, it seemed very important to follow it. I've asked several times here if that was the right way to go about it. No response. 94.222.101.42 (talk) 18:54, 23 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)

I also support the retention of the infobox as per the precedent of the Terri Schiavo case. It doesn't make sense to me for these two very similar articles to have different infoboxes. I also think that the information in the infobox is relevant as it provides context for the case. Ca2james (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As illustrated by today's edits, we still don't have a resolution on this issue. My suggestion to remove the infobox was not just because of the birth and death dates, but because the family members' names really aren't as relevant in this case. In the Terri Schiavo case, the parents and spouse became more notable themselves owing to how long the situation dragged out, their internal clashes and the forming of a foundation after Terri's death, etc. I would argue again that McMath's nationality and city of residence aren't relevant to this article either; it's sufficient to say that she was treated at Children's Hospital in Oakland. Funcrunch (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The birth and death dates are definitely relevant. The mother's name is relevant because she's the one who has brought the legal cases forwards. The father and stepfather's names are irrelevant and I think they can be removed. The country, at least, is totally relevant because I don't think this situation could occur anywhere else in the world, and I think it - or the city - belongs in the infobox. Ca2james (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to find a resolution that will satisfy this anon, then, as instead of edit warring over verb tense we now have edit warring over listing the death date in the infobox. 24.0.133.234 (talk) appears to be the only editor posting either here or at the article talk page who does not agree that Jahi McMath died on December 12. How do we reach consensus under these circumstances? Funcrunch (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that the infobox can be deleted (see below) so I think we've got consensus there. I don't know how to reach a consensus on the rest of the article with respect to the date of death when a single editor does not agree. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

IP editor is continuing to post long treatises on brain death and medical ethics to the talk page, and has shown unwillingness to compromise in order to reach consensus with the other editors regarding the handling of this article. I have no solution. Funcrunch (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the IP editor is engaging in WP:DISRUPT? If so, is time to seek resolution via one or another of the steps in WP:DDE? Ca2james (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but as IP has accused me personally of edit warring and ownership issues, and my attempt to seek outside assistance to resolve the dispute here has apparently failed, I'd rather someone else seek resolution at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we handle someone whose death is contested? Well, there's always the BLPN Hit Squad. As a last resort, of course. Other methods of disambiguation are always preferable. We here at Wikipedia are already quite accustomed to character assassination, so this will be but a small step. I mean this literally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the immediately preceding (stricken) comment in a humorous way, before looking at the article, which I've now looked at and edited slightly. It really is a tragic case, and my sympathies go out to all concerned. The state says she's dead and her parents say she isn't. Wikipedia need not and should not take sides. This may make editing more difficult, but it can be done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If there is even a scintilla of dispute, WP:BLP absolutely applies -- and is considered to apply to "recently dead" people by practice in any event. The goal is "do no harm" and if harm would be seen by anyone involved, we ought not do it. Collect (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With this in mind, I can see that it is better to remove the death date from the infobox for now (there will come a time when the family comes to the realization that the body they are maintaining is, in fact, dead, and the article will likely change at that time). Without the death date information and with the addition of the state in the lead, I concede that the rest of the info in the infobox is irrelevant and support its removal. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv - Your assistance thus far in resolving this dispute have been appreciated. Unfortunately, despite the "is/was" and infobox issues being addressed, IP editor 24.0.133.234 remains unsatisfied with the content of the (now renamed) Jahi McMath case article, and is continuing to engage in editing and talk page behavior that Ca2james and myself consider to be disruptive. We could use more guidance as to how to proceed and/or escalate. Funcrunch (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have agreed that we need help. I have been continuing to edit? is that an example of disruptive behavior? If so please just BLOCK ME so that the censorship issue is clear.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 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)

The edit summary of this revert of my WP:BLPREMOVE by Tbhotch states "It's not that difficult to use Google News. The Mirror may not be reliable, but Rodriguez and Delevingne are". The Mirror article which supposedly quotes Rodriguez and another unnamed source is not an official press release or statement and it was definitely not quoting Delevingne. HelenOnline 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd approach the statement with caution at this stage. I note that the Independent, for example, caveats the story by saying here that "Earlier this week, Rodriguez also apparently confirmed the romance, though many initially approached her statement with caution, as it was printed in The Mirror from what appeared to be an undisclosed interview." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the Independent article which is probably the most reliable source so far. However, the comment "I love her, she's great" is not exactly conclusive proof. The Independent commenters pretty much echo my own impressions of the whole story (not relevant here I know, but at least I know I am not alone), i.e. speculative gossip, possible PR stunt. Wikipedia is not the place for gossip, campaigning or commercial promotion and we should be better than the media at filtering such information. HelenOnline 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW the secondhand comment quoted in the Independent (from the Digital Spy website) was pretty selective. The full quote is "I don't know what you're talking about. I love her, she's great." (emphasis mine). HelenOnline 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: TMZ has updated their article noting that Rodriguez's rep told them that Rodriguez never spoke to The Mirror, and Delevingne was quoted in The Mirror today saying "I love her, she’s great. She’s a very good friend of mine – she’s wonderful." HelenOnline 13:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This content is still being added regularly to both articles either without sources or with unreliable sources (latest: [15] [16]), and none of the editors concerned (including not new registered ones) are interested in discussing it here as requested. Both articles are now pending changes protected. I'm not sure what else I can do, but I would like this to stay here a bit longer, ideally until either the fuss blows over (probably when the tabloid media publishes a more interesting story) or we have reliable sources (not holding my breath). HelenOnline 06:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion moved here from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez

Moved from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez § Girlfriend.3F

Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources confirming the relationship that do not rely on secondhand information from unreliable sources such as The Mirror (who Rodriguez's rep says Rodriguez never spoke to). Please rather discuss at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cara Delevingne. HelenOnline 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply HelenOnline. Now the Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Mirror, Independent and Irish Independent are reporting on her relationship. Is that enough sources yet? Tomh903 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of quantity, it's a question of quality. If they are tabloids or quoting secondhand information from an unreliable source such as The Mirror, they are of no use. Once again, I must ask you to please discuss it at WP:BLPN which specialises in such issues (and because it affects more than one BLP article). HelenOnline 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy

I am new to Wikipedia and hope that those with better knowledge than I about the intricate workings of editing play fair with me. Looking at the history of this entry I am concerned that all references to Stuart Murphy's homosexuality are removed very rapidly without reason. Murphy has gone on the record regarding his sexuality. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/24/stuart-murphy-sky-battle-box and elsewhere. What precisely merits the censorship of this well known aspect of his life anymore than removing all references to Stephen Fry's homosexuality in his Wikipedia entry? Its removal is offensive to the gay community. Or have I misunderstood? I am happy to stand corrected if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.135.151 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've misunderstood.

If you're new to Wikipedia, why are you repeating the exact self-same comparison (of Murphy to Fry) that another editor posted on my talk page more than a year ago? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that he (or she), like me, simply looked at the history of the SM talk page and followed the link to your historical (and to some degree hysterical) "discussions"? Why are perfectly polite newbies on Wikipedia treated in such a hostile and suspicious fashion? He or she makes a very good albeit repeated point about Fry and I don't see you, Demiurge, adopting a helpful attitude here. Saying "Yes you have misunderstood" without explaining why isn't fair is it? So please explain why a man who is openly gay (and has said so on the record in the Guardian and to camera at the Edinburgh TV Festival) should have this issue removed from Wikipedia over and over again by you? Look at the history everyone. It makes for fascinating and revealing reading ! In the meantime if references to the guy's sexuality is removed again, I'll go onto the Fry page and remove those too. 50.60.134.27 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you? 50.60.134.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making threats above can be assumed to be the same person as the other 50.60.xx, although implying otherwise. I've blocked the range for a few weeks. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

WOW! I hear the sounds of grinding axes. This is generating a lot of heat but little light and blocking people for making a joke, which is how the Fry comment read to me, is a bit severe isn't it? It probably is the same guy but he makes good points. I see no light coming from Demiurge1000 just the rapid knee jerk revert revert. The ref to Murphy's homosexuality is going back on the page. Can we have a cool, calm, level-headed senior editor with no connection to this Murphy page to oversee it? What IS the big deal here? All it says is that the guy is gay which he has said many times? 181.41.209.19 (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

His sexual orientation is of no relevance to the article. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Stuart Murphy article has been placed in several gay and LGBT categories so it's not likely his sexual orientation is completely erased. You raise a good question though since, when it is an entertainer or sports figure declaring they are LGBT, mention of it is usually included in their article but it is considered irrelevant for individuals who aren't so obviously on a public stage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. Stuart Murphy is hardly unknown. Yet, seldom a day passes without there being a press release from him (in his role as one of the major commissioners for British and U.S TV). He is very well known not only by many who work in TV (and who doubtless consider him to be a role model as the youngest ever controller in BBC TV etc.), but by regular readers of newspapers' media pages etc. Tiptoety's edit entry (though not on this page I note) says “his children are not notable, and noting that he has them adds nothing to the article. Do not re-add this material. Continually re-adding will result in a block”. This unpleasantness is unsupported by the accusation of a violation per WP:BLP. How does directly quoting Murphy regarding his familial circumstances and his sexuality (from reliable sources)constitute such a violation? The identities of the children are not revealed in the entry. And his sexual circumstances are noteworthy not least because of his senior position in TV and editorial powers. He could certainly be an inspiration to many men and women facing a similar predicament. So I say its inclusion does add to the article and I am going to revert. If I am blocked by Tiptoety as that editor threatens, I would welcome the wider involvement of the Wikipedia community to look into this. I see a pincer movement and blocking threats going on too frequently between Tiptoety and Demiurge1000 (see above). Look at the history of the Murphy entry (as suggested above). If I am blocked, I will bring this to the attention of the founder of the esteemed organization. 181.41.209.86 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, by that train of thought, if I was to openly say that I am, for example a straight man, that would warrant being included in an article about me? What if I didn't want it included? What if I didn't want an entry about me on one of the top 5 websites to make mention of my children? Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

By default on Wikipedia everyone is presumed to be straight, and we regularly report on straight people's girlfriends, and boyfriends. It's only when the people are LGBT that every nuance has to be sourced, often multiple times, for the content to survive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone with considerable power in the media (such as Murphy) decides to single out details of their sexual preferences in a high profile newspaper interview (straight or otherwise), then such comments must be regarded as significant. Most heterosexual men don't go out of their way to divulge whether they are straight or not, but those who do (usually by mentioning their conquests) clearly do so for a reason and it seems perverse that some Wikiepedia editors want to expunge such freely given and significant personal information. Murphy's sexuality has clearly had an impact on his editorial thinking. Before he came out, he commissioned the first very out newsreader for BBC3 tv (and made a PR feature of it). I guess that many of his Sky comedies like "Trollied" (almost a present day "Are you Being Served") attract a gay audience. That is why I find the expunging mention of this man's homosexuality sinister because I don't trust the motives. Is Murphy himself regretting he mentioned it now he climbs higher up the ladder? Just as sinister is the bullying tone of the editors wanting to applying the censorship in this entry. Aggression is becoming epidemic in Wikipedia. Read the terse and cavalier remarks above this entry from editors presumably with a high number of wiki barn stars but with obviously very low self esteem. Such a barbed tonality will eventually damage Wikipedia's reputation. Bullying (phrases like "you are going to get blocked" without giving reason) isn't permitted in the school playground, so why is it tolerated in the grown up world of Wikipedia? More severe action should be taken against such people. I am going to send this little interchange to Jimmy Wales. 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Comments please. Page with longtime disputes and editor seeks to overrule others in using gossip column as acceptable source for negative articles, yet not use for positive articles. Please help. Is an active living person. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue is also one of WP:UNDUE and is about a lawsuit which one gossip column wrote about. when exact same gossip column wrote about a major purchase from a celebrity was disallowed. This issue is unnecessarily mean and unkind, as well as from a gossip source. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to add that the characterization of the dispute isn't entirely accurate. The above user wanted to include a news item about a real estate transaction which other editors on the article deemed to be gossip (and real estate news in Manhattan qualifies as gossip) and failed WP:NOTNEWS. Now, there was another news item, about Torossian being sued for libel, which the above editor does not deem Wikipedia-worthy. Which is well and all, but because both items were sourced to Daily News (New York), the editor interpreted it to mean all stories that come from the NYDN was gossip. And while I think we can argue over the amount of attention given to the libel suit, I think the complete removal of the topic is inappropriate.

A complicating matter with this article is that it, along with articles for 5W Public Relations and its interests, are occasional targets of SPAs and anonymous editors affiliated with the firm. And further complicating the issue are the nature of the topic's occupation - persuading media outlets to cover specific stories - and his reputation, accurate or not, for promoting himself and his firm as much as his clients. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bump

There is an OTRS ticket Ticket:2014022410000719 re Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is one of those cases where a thankless task needs doing: the complaint is in respect of the rather sneering tone of the article, but the guy is a gifted self-publicist and this has been going on for years (Ticket:2011032810012659, Ticket:2008110410017083, and Ticket:2006121510017939 which suggests the article has its roots in a PR exercise on his behalf by his firm) so treading the fine line of tone and balance is going to take some skill. If there's someone who is genuinely interested in the field of PR then please do have a go, because I think an editor with subject matter knowledge is likely to be the best bet here. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm helping out on this article. There have been contributions to the article from editors with overt POV from both sides in the past, but I've started a debate and it seems to be going sensibly, so far. I'd therefore welcome assistance at the Talk page from any neutral editors used to BLP issues. Feel free to respond to any/all OTRS on this subject by referring them to me. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Keith R. Kernspecht

I wanted to get some input on the notability of this figure before taking any action and I'm a bit rusty on my BLP standards. If anybody else would be so kind as to take a look and let me know their thoughts on his notability I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff at Google Books about him.[17] So, I'd say notable. German Wikipedia might be helpful in fixing up our article.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Pembrey, Edward J. Steele, Eva Jablonka

I usually walk through pathehtic crap like this, but this takes the cake.

I recently heard about Epiegenetics and naturally I wanted to see what I missed the last decade.

Eva Jablonka Intentionally missrepresent links.

Marcus Pembrey Same.

Edward J. Steele Same....AAAND the Anti Deffemation Leage link leads to An American Politician.

None of them fo what I could see refeered them selves as Lamarckians.

FYI, these manchildren are still around, disengeniusly spamming Lamarckian page and "Nature versus nurture" and half the Biology pages. 84.202.109.61 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

A lot of work needed to get this biography of the Ukrainian politician up to scratch. Many (most?) of the sources don't seem to be adequate for a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you might cross-post your request at WikiProject Ukraine. The talk page doesn't seem very active (which is surprising) but it's more likely that you will encounter editors there who are familiar with Yulia Tymoshenko's life and career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

• Ward Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With regard to the External Links section of Churchill's article, does the section currently conform to the norms of what usually appears in the External Links section for a BLP? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Several are not especially pertinent per WP:EL. Blogs etc. have no place as "external links" Collect (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks for the extra sets of eyes that have now vetted the list. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Candace Hutson

Candace Hutson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello! This is Candace Hutson. My last name has since changed but Hutson is my maiden name, and was my professional acting name. My birthdate is incorrect on your site, My actual birthdate is May 3rd, 1980. I have submitted to IMDb a request for a correction for my birthdate. If you could please correct my birthdate on Wikipedia, it would really stop irritating my family, friends, and even my kids! I would appreciate it so much! Thank you for your time on this simple matter! Thanks again. Sincerely, Candace Hutson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.139.234 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. At Wikipedia, self-published websites that are largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), are largely not acceptable for us as reliable sources, unless the material is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. So, I think the best thing to do for now would be to leave your birthday information at Wikipedia blank, but it can be filled in by anyone who can provide a reliable source. I hope that explanation wasn't too boring! Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Matt Mulhern Biography

Matt Mulhern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Mulheren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Wikipedia,

Just trying to point out a mistake on your Biography of the Actor Matt Mulhern. It said he had a recurring role in the TV Series 'Rescue Me'. As I was a big fan of both Rescue Me and the film Biloxi Blues, in which Mulhern played one of the lead roles, I knew there was something not right as I had no recollection of him in Rescue Me. It turns out the mistake is most likely down to another actor called Michael Mulheren being confused with Matt Mulhern-both incidentally from New Jersey, but different people and it was the former appeared in Rescue Me and not Matt. Hope this has been a help and will get to the correct person to fix the mistake.

Eamonn Walsh Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.95.4 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here Eamonn. I have put tags atop each article pointing to the other.

However, I think you're somewhat mistaken. They were both in Rescue Me, I think. Michael played Chief Perolli for 13 episodes, 2004-2006. Matt played Lt. John Stackhouse for 3 episodes in 2006..Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Cooper

This notice is regarding this page: Stephen Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen Cooper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cooper_(businessman)

The following article is repeatedly referenced in the "Personal Life" section, but it has no affiliation to Stephen Cooper, so I removed it again: http://www.bloomfield-cooper.com/dm20/en_US/group/business/bloomfieldcooper/index.page.

Please kindly let me know why this article is repeatedly re-posted and let me know if it can stay removed.

I think the primary reason why the previous edits were reverted was because apparently sourced information was repeatedly removed by an IP with no explaination. It always a good idea to leave an WP:edit summary explaining any changes you are making, particularly in a case like this where it's entirely unclear what you're doing and looks a lot like vandalism. (Opening a discussion in the article talk page as I see you've done also helps, but you seem to be the first to do it as the 3 previous IPs aren't there.) In this case, I've looked at the sources and there's nothing linking either to the particularly Stephen Cooper covered in the article Stephen Cooper (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so I support your removal and have followed up your edit with a new edit explaining the reason for removal. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article wrote me a very angry note about the article about her and I've decided to try to help improve it. I have made some edits already but could use some help.

The article is unrelentingly negative in tone, but that is in no small part because virtually all third party writing about her is hostile due to her controversial (to say the least) positions and her own angry style of writing. But on top of that, in looking into our summaries of several of her positions or past controversies, I'm find the article to be sometimes weak in terms of good quality summary of what was actually said or what actually happened.

There also appears to be far too much reliance on blogs for sourcing.

Anyway, help would be appreciated and there's some stuff I have written on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Myself and another editor showed up to help Jimbo with this. More are always welcome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel as though the article is fine the way it is now, the majority of it was listing the controversial things she said, which is important to include. I don't see a problem with it! Adamh4 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The main controversy now is about the stuff regarding Poland (toward the end of the BLP).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi

Mata Amritanandamayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm concerned with content on the page for Mata Amritanandamayi. There is an unpublished book that is getting play in the India media and it seems that there is a group of editors who feel very strongly about including negative material against Mata Amritanandamayi. I believe they are violating WP:BLPCRIME Could somebody please take a look? User:Amrit914, 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The other editor in the dispute seems to be User:Drajay1976. I will put a link to this discussion at article talk. In view of the user name of User:Amrit914, I suppose it's worth asking whether Amrit914 is editing on behalf of the subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The section about the controversial allegations in the book is currently under mediation (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi). I dont think it serves any purpose to have a parallel discussion here if there is a mediation going on about exactly the same issue. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've volunteered to mediate the dispute, and I agree that it makes sense not to continue with this thread, and try to resolve the issues through mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Fabbrini

Sergio Fabbrini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please remove the article for the following reasons:

1) It is a CV and it is not relevant: there is no encyclopedic suitability of the subject; 2) The biography often refers to unverifiable (as well as uninteresting) contents ("married with...two sons..."), that may also violate the privacy of third parties. 2.235.43.146 (talk) February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is whether the CV-style article can or should be fixed instead of deleted. For example, the info about wife and children can easily be moved from the first sentence of the lead to a section about personal life, and I have done so. The person seems to be somewhat notable, having written a ton of books and held influential positions in academe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You can take this article to WP:AFD, but I'd bet good money on a "keep".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Willie Manning

Willie Jerome Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments. Smallnslow (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This matter involves a person on death row for murder. For reasons that I'm unsure of, the discussion has been at user talk, instead of at article talk. See User talk:Smallnslow. The other editor involved in this controversy is User:Bundleofsticks. I will place a link to this discussion at article talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Anythingyouwant. I gave user Smallnslow constructive advice about WP policies (NPOV and RS) and offered to help him/her edit the article and s/he ignored that advice and blasted on. All Smallnslow has done is remove sourced RS material from the article, in order to push a POV. Smallnslow's edits were so severe that they triggered two separate bots to undo the changes. The subject of the article has been convicted of two double murders. That is simply a fact. It is a fact that has been stated in most of the leading newspapers of the United States. I do not see that I have violated WP:BLP. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the basic disagreement here about whether we should call a convicted murderer a "murderer" before he has exhausted all appeals?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what is going on at the article but I have had a look at that talk page, User talk:Smallnslow. The statement "the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia" is not what I would necessarily call constructive advice given that other Wikipedia leads aren't relevant. Smallnslow's suggestion to change 'convicted murderer' to 'convicted of murder' seems to be a simple and effective solution that is consistent with policy. It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If that were all there were to it, I would not have reverted. But Smallnslow cut 4735 bytes, almost half the article, including basically all of the evidence from two murder trials that was rehashed on numerous appeals. User Smallnslow is apparently trying to push the POV that Manning is innocent and trying to delete anything from the article that interferes with that POV, like eyewitnesses, ballistics tests, having the victims' property. I mentioned those other articles because Smallnslow argued that saying someone is a convicted murderer is POV; I pointed out that is not POV but is rather a common practice on WP. Anyway, it's just a fact. He was convicted of four murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Baby steps. They seem to be a new single-purpose-so-far account and the learning curve is steep. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above <He was convicted of four murders>. I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910. Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published. Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources. I again suggest you learn these policies of WP before slashing articles wholesale. Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy. Everyone is eager to learn the results of the DNA testing. I have no doubt that it will lead to more national headlines. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the comments from Bundlesofsticks <Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.> "New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 “Lawyers for Mr. Manning have argued that the case has serious holes. Some of the trial witnesses gave accounts inconsistent with known facts, they said, and one key witness, the former girlfriend, was given a favorable plea deal on fraud charges as well as nearly $18,000 in reward money after testifying for the prosecution, details not fully disclosed to the trial jury. Mr. Manning’s lawyers also pointed to fingerprints found in Ms. Miller’s car, which had been driven elsewhere and abandoned after the killings. None of the prints matched Mr. Manning’s, and multiple prints were found that did not match those of the victims.” <The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.> WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." There appears to be no editorial oversight involved in the Dispatch article that I removed. http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= To publish a ‘news story’ that presents Manning in so bad a light, without reference to the wider context and without presenting an alternative or mitigating viewpoint (at a time when well-established news outlets were reporting indications of a possible wrongful conviction), is at the very least sensationalist, in keeping with the tabloid press. The wider context at that time was: New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The State of Mississippi has denied requests for DNA testing of evidence made by a prisoner set to be executed on Tuesday, potentially setting up what experts said would be a rare case in recent years in which a person is put to death with such requests unmet. <Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.> WP:BLP Avoid misuse of primary sources . Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. <Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.> It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk • WP:GRAPEVINE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:BLPREMOVE Smallnslow (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appeals court. Arguments that lawyers are making to have a conviction overturned do not factor into editing decisions. Unless you want to start a paragraph "alleged problems with the cases," which would necessarily have to cite the kind of court documents you claim are barred from the article.

Wikipedia is also not a journalism review board. The Commercial Dispatch of Columbus is a reputable newspaper written and run by professional journalists. It is an RS. Compare that to a blog. A blog is not an RS. Newspapers and other RS refer to a person as an "alleged murderer" before he is convicted and a "convicted murderer" after. Manning was convicted not once, but twice, in two separate trials, nearly 20 years ago, of double murder. He is a double double murderer. No newspaper will refer to a killer as an "alleged murderer" after conviction. Your beef with the Commercial Dispatch is without merit.

Court records are fair sources in an article about a court case that has been written about in secondary sources.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason this case has garnered the attention it has in the national media is because of the FBI rescinding an evidence report it issued, an extremely unusual situation, although I don't know about "historic." The FBI action is being discussed in terms of whether it is a new policy that will affect other cases. The second reason this is notable is because Manning was convicted of two separate double murders. I cannot think of anyone else who committed two double murders. In the original version of the page, it stated Manning had "the unique distinction" of that; another editor quickly changed it to "rare," and since I wasn't able to document that Manning's status is completely unique, I didn't object or revert. Now you have removed even "rare." What makes this a truly unique set of circumstances is that a court could decide to completely throw out Manning's conviction on the first double murder (Steckler-Miller) on the basis of the FBI report but Manning could still be executed for the second double murder (Jimmerson-Jordan). Or Manning could be executed for Jimmerson-Jordan while the latest Steckler-Miller appeal is still ongoing. Either way, this case has already been considered noteworthy.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bundlesofsticks, I think people are convicted all the time of multiple murder. Even if the conviction of killing one of them is overturned on appeal, the person often still serves the original sentence (e.g. life in prison). IMHO, the only potentially historic thing here is the FBI rescission, but it needs to be explained better in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Manning case is significant as the first of 27 cases the FBI is reviewing, which might indicate a significant policy change. I will work on the lede. You are correct that there are multiple murders all the time. The unique thing about this is TWO SEPARATE double murders. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if someone does three separate double murders, or two separate triple murders, then they get a Wikipedia article? In any multiple murder, the prosecutor can decide to charge separately for each one, so I still don't see the significance of that. But the FBI policy change might be enough significance for an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So if you can't have your way with the article, you don't want it to exist at all. That is censorship. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ludlow BLP Violation

I reverted this edit as it was in the lead and misrepresented the source. The source summarises the story of a student suing a university for allegedly failing to act on sexual harassment allegations. The edit changed the onus of the lawsuit from the university to the subject, and exaggerated the allegations. The talk page discussion also violates BLP and I believe the edit summaries beginning with this one, may need redacting - and some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources. This source seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined, however it doesn't support the current allegations. Could an admin please have a look a and consider redacting edit summaries (I have changed the section heading for posts going forward). Is it OK for me to refactor or strike through those sections of posts which are in violation? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

With a new source being provided in this talk page edit, I would like to propose the following addition to the article:

"In response to a lawsuit by a former student, Northwestern University detailed it's finding that in 2012 Ludlow had violated its sexual harassment code and was the subject of disciplinary action."<ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-23/news/ct-northwestern-lawsuit-met-20140223_1_student-northwestern-professor-university-administrators</ref> Ludlow was not named in the lawsuit and refutes the student's allegations of sexual harassment.<ref>http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/02/13/campus/attorney-ludlow-disputes-lawsuits-allegations/</ref> Flat Out let's discuss it 05:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flat Out that there are unacceptable edits, which need to be dealt with, but I am not sure whether everything he/she says is right. I will outline some of my thoughts on the matter, and I will welcome constructive comments about what I say, both from Flat Out and from others.

I have checked the edit in the first link Flat Out provides, and compared it with the sources it cites. I agree that there are problems with the edit, for reasons which I will explain below, but I don't see how the edit "changed the onus of the lawsuit". If that means that the edit to the article focussed mainly on the accusation against Ludlow, not on the charges against the university, then surely that is because it is an article about Ludlow, and the part of the story relating to him is what is relevant to the article. Nor do I see in what way it exaggerated the allegations. On the contrary, one problem that I see is that the edit sticks too closely to exactly what one of the sources says, so that it might be seen as verging on copyright infringement. I have looked at the edit summary in the second edit Flat Out links to, and it is not clear to me what the problem is. The edit summary says "Added section", and then states what the added section is about. It is about allegations, and it is well established by numerous sources that there have been allegations. The edit summary does not state in detail what the allegations are, and I am not clear why merely mentioning that there have been allegations is problematic.

Flat Out goes on to say "some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources". If that is so, then it is a serious cause for action. The source which Flat Out says "seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined" reads to me like a piece of tub-thumping, and I have doubts as to how reliable a source it is. However, it is probably reliable enough to support that specific statement. Flat Out goes on to say that it "doesn't support the current allegations". Does that mean the specific accusations said to have been made by a student? If so, then that is an important point. No matter how many reliable sources we can find that say that a student has said "such and such a person did such and such things", that is only evidence that someone has made that accusation, not that the accusation is valid. A very common mistake is to think that Wikipedia uses the same standards as respectable newspapers, which follow the principle that an allegation made in court may be reported as an allegation, whether or not it is justified. That is not so: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says, amongst other things, "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." It therefore seems to me that the article should not contain statements about the specific allegations against the person in question, since, as far as I am aware, the only source saying that he did those things is the say-so of an unnamed student.

I see that the article's talk page contains specific statements about what is supposed to have been done, which are given in quotation marks, and accompanied by links to sources, which clearly implies that the quoted words are taken from one of the sources, but in fact neither of the sources says anything resembling the "quoted" text. That is clearly unacceptable, and I shall certainly redact that. It also seems likely that there is other content which should be removed form one or other of the article, its talk page, or the editing history of those pages. However, for now I will leave it at that, and wait to see whether anyone else has anything to say about exactly what needs doing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The following post was originally placed immediately after my statement "The edit summary does not state in detail what the allegations are, and I am not clear why merely mentioning that there have been allegations is problematic" above. I am moving it here to make it clear that my comments above were all one post. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The section heading added which was carried forward in edit summaries included the word "assault" until I changed it to "Controversy." I can't see anything reliable that supports allegations of assault. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thanks for protectign the article and addressing the BLP violations, I tried a couple of times to get this done without success. I also note that the italics quotes you mention do not match what is said in the sources provided. I agree that the student allegations are not enough and it was on that basis I reverted the original article edit. The "current allegations" I alluded to are those maded on the talk page that allege an assault. My proposed edit is based on a report that that university found the subject had breached their sexual harassment code and that the subject was disciplined. I remain concerned that the edit summaries commencing with this one are a BLP violation. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• There has now been over 48 hours since this section was started, and announced on the article's talk page. So far, apart from Flat Out, none of the participants in the talk page discussion there has chosen to comment here, but of course they are still welcome to do so. It is also 43 hours and some minutes since the article was protected, with a prominent notice inviting discussion on the talk page, but none of the participants in the earlier discussions has yet commented since then.
• I have now revision-deleted violations of WP:BLP from both the article and the talk page. (Incidentally, in the course of checking, I found another, unrelated, BLP violation from much longer ago, and revision deleted that too.) Having considered what Flat Out has said above, I have decided that the comments referring to the nature of the "allegations", both in edit summaries and in the text of the talk page, can reasonably be regarded as BLP violations, so I have included those in the revision deletion.
• I am here in my capacity as an administrator, not as an editor. I initially came to the article in response to a request for administrative action made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and I subsequently came to this discussion in response to a post on my talk page. I do not wish to get involved in the editing of the article, nor in discussions about how to do so, beyond the specific issue of dealing with violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. I will therefore express no opinion on the merits or otherwise of Flat Out's proposed addition to the article, beyond saying that it does seem to me to avoid the BLP problems that have been mentioned. I also suggest to Flat Out that it might be a good idea to post the proposal on the article's talk page, since there may well be editors who look at that page but don't follow the link to this discussion, and it would be advantageous to give them an opportunity to comment on the proposal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose Close - given that none of the editors pushing to have the allegations included in the article have bothered to enter discussion, I propose the discussion be closed and the article protection amended to all edits by unconfirmed edits requiring review. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've removed the full protection, and set "pending changes". For the moment I have set it to run for three months, but that could be reviewed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Olena Anatoliivna Bondarenko

(Relates to the current, that is the of February 2014 edition of the article)

The article about member of Ukrainian parliament, Regional Party member Olena A. Bondarenko, does not meet Wikipedia standards. The article looks to have been amended/written by someone with very strong personal views about the conflict in the Ukraine. If anything, the article demonstrates how far away from each others the parties in the conflict are.

I opened a discussion of this, under the folowing subjects:

   1 Very low standard article
       1.1 Questionable and unverified information
       1.2 Serioius, undocumented claims about Bondarenko and the police
       1.3 Politicised, emotional language

I will hereby restate the problems with the article.

Without documentation, the article says:

• It claims that ”Bondarenko has been the topic of increased concern with regards to human rights in Ukraine”. This might be true, I don’t really know. However, I would expect the article to explain why, if first it makes that claim.
• It uses the wording ”murdered by the police” wihtout pointing out that it has not been established whether they were (in legal terms) murdered and without pointing out that Bondarenko (according to the source given for the claim) does not accept they have been murdered.
• It claims that ”Bondarenko was one of the parties suspected of contributing to the mass murder in Kiev which occurred February 20-21, 2014” without explaining how Bondarenko, as a member of parliament, can be responsible (”one of the parties”) for any such thing. Clarification: It is one thing to be a Member of Parliament and as such to defend the goverment and another thing to be responsible for acting out a policy, and hence one wonders in what, according to the article, Bondarenko can be ”one of the parties”.
• Under the heading ”Pending Death Sentence”, the article claims that ”A new law proposed by Svyatoslav Piskun, former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, temporarily amends the constitution to qualify Bondarenko and other accused parties for execution if found guilty.[18]” withot giving any explanation about how this is relevant to Bondarenko. First, it is one thing to claim that a law has been proposed - there are many law propoisals. Second, even if the law were to exist, how is it relevant to Bondarenko? Where is the documentation that shows that this law affects, of would affect, Bondarenko?
• The article uses the heading ”Pending Death Sentence”, but does not show any documentation that a death sentence is pending and also nothing that documents that a death sentence is likley. The claim appears taken out of the air, as an attempt to put Bonderenko in a very negative light. This one of the gravest and most malicious issues with the article as it stands.

The article uses emotional language to put Bondarenko in a negative light.

Documentation:

• Article talks about ”the peaceful protests in Kiev”. However, Bondarenko does not agree, it seems, that the protests were (only) peaceful - and many would agree. The article should reflect the differing views of the protests. In the source given for the claim, Bondarenko suggest thining of the killings as accidental killings.
• Article says that ”Bondarenko coldly responded”. However, the source given for that claim, does not say whether shew was cold or warn - if we can glean anything from the soure article, then it is that Bondarenko felt insulted by the questions she received from the journalists. Wikipedia does not know and cannot know whether a person is cold or warm.
• Under the heading ”Pending Death Sentence” the article talks about ”the mass murder in Kiev”. A mass murder is usually a wording applied when a single person or a single party to a conflict kills on a mass scale - for example Breivik at the Utøya, Norway. However, in Kiev, we have reports that killings happened on both sides. We also have reports about a very tense situation, with violence from the protesting forces, both inside and outside Kiev. The article itself, points to a source which documetns that journalists asks Bondarenko about the killing of journalists. Why did the journalists ask Bondarenko? Because the case is not obvious. This is a case were Wikipedia must thread carefully and use neutral but accurate language. For instance the english newspaper Mail Online puts the mass murder phrase in quotations. Putting phrases in quotation is the common way of showing that the newspaper is citing another source in order to emphasize that it is not their own claim.

BLP and subject's work

Hi, WP:BLPKIND says

Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

I'm wondering how this applies to the work of the subject; that is, an article about their book, company or product. If the subject is upset about misrepresentation of their work, how does BLP/OTRS apply? Thanks Span (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Thought experiment: a shareholder of Altria is upset about the notion that tobacco products cause cancer. Is this really going to become a BLP problem that would lead us to soft-pedal the idea that tobacco products cause cancer? Another: Richard Easterlin is (for the sake of the example) upset about the way our article on him includes critique of his ideas by other economists; is this really something where we're going to accede to his wishes just because he expresses them here? As for the general idea: if a subject is upset about "misrepresentation" of their work, surely the way we'd want to look at it is that they are upset at what they consider to be misrepresentation of their work. The key point is that BLPKIND properly says that "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material [presumably by the subject] is acceptable" -- and so what matters here is whether the material in question is properly sourced. We don't need to give special consideration to the opinions of authors etc. as might be expressed in posts here (or via OTRS); what we need to do is to stick to the sources, and in my view we'll be in good shape. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We do give 'special consideration' to their biographies though, well sourced or not. If they request certain elements are removed, then they are generally removed. So if, for example, Jane Goodall feels that her personal work as an anthropologist has been wildly misrepresented, or their is personal slander in it, wouldn't it back on to BLP? (NB Jane Goodall is a purely hypothetical example). Thanks Span (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

William Thourlby

William Thourlby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IMDB says this person passed away in April of last year. I have located an obit, but it is small and does not make mention of his acting career, so I'm wondering if that really is him. Thoughts? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way. This article mentions him, saying "William Thourlby, who died last year aged 89[..]." A findagrave page for William L. Thourlby exists. This article implies that he has died. "Thourlby survived long enough [..]". --Auric talk 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of sex crimes while a trial is underway

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

---

I'm not sure of what to do about this. An Irish sports journalists is currently under trial for alleged sexual exploitation of a minor. The allegations include coercing a child to engage in the production of child pornography and inducing or coercing her to engage in a sexual, indecent or obscene act. A BBC report on the trial is here.

The article on the person accused of the crime makes mention of the allegation and that the trial has begun. As is common in many jurisdictions, a person accused of such crimes in Ireland are not ordinarily identified while the court case is underway. In part, at least, this is to protect the identity of alleged victims.

We are, of course, not censored and the Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the laws of Ireland, I presume (not a lawyer!). However, I'm minded to remove mention of the criminal allegations until the trial has concluded as suggested by WP:BLP (see WP:BLPCRIME).

Any thoughts before I do so? --Tóraí (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would depend if the individual is "relatively unknown" according to extant policy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was a bit perplexed by that. All BLPs must meet notability guidelines. I think the person is relative unknown. However, the person is known well-enough known that the initial allegation were reported by the press in Ireland. However, there is an additional RS problem in that the more recent RS (including some cited in the article) don't name the subject for legal reasons. So, I don't know. What is the threshold for being sufficiently known?

I'm inclined to look at WP:BLPNAME, although not explicitly relevant. Particularly, the reference to cases when the name of a person is intentionally concealing by a court. And especially considering that the wider context of the article and the subject will not be affected by removing the reference.

OK, actually, after writing this out, I've decided it's better to remove it. Does that make sense? --Tóraí (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Safest course is to wait until the end of the trial - Wikipedia has no "deadline" and it is better to be careful and slower than the newspapers, than to violate prudent policies. Collect (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

David Samson (New Jersey)

• David Samson (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been adding material about to the controversies related to David Samson (New Jersey) a living person, and want to make sure that the material is appropriate. All the material added is supported by reputable sources. As there are no other editors participating in editing that article I'd appreciate some fresh eyes and feedback. Cwobeel (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wes Cooley

A lot of uncited negative stuff.65.130.253.244 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. TheRedPenOfDoom and I have removed some of the crud. On the other hand, Cooley is legitimately controversial. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Paco de Lucía

Several editors are adding death information for this subject but no references are being offered. I can not find any mention of his death searching the web and have reach 3RR to support its removal until referenced. I would like other opinions.—John Cline (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A source has been added.—John Cline (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We need a better source than a blog. Never mind - I've cited the BBC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO would apply here, regarding BLP. GiantSnowman 13:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman

Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some eyes are needed on the Peter Ruckman article. This diff is typical. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the information in this article is very one-side and defaming to this man's character. Much information is not correct. I personally know Dr. Peter Ruckman very well (my father is a close friend of his) and this article is very defaming to his character. I have tried to edit it to present the other side and correct errors, but someone else keeps changing it back. There is enough evidence from those who PERSONALLY know Dr. Ruckman, and at least should be able to write what we KNOW to be true. It is not fair to allow someone who has a very bad opinion and grudge against this man to be allowed to control the article, and not present the other side and evidence. This violates true justice and smacks of communism and loss of freedom of speech. If you allow this to continue, you are violating your own rules.

Thank you, A&A Clip — Preceding unsigned comment added by A&A Clip (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about the man and yet I am reverting your edits. That is because they don't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You need to pause and take the time to read the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:3RR and WP:COS) and consider whether you are able to comply with them. If you cannot, you should walk away from the article. The key thing to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on information published by reliable sources, not our personal knowledge and opinions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil Robertson's remarks about black people, on Duck Dynasty

Hi, I may be missing something here so I'd like some uninvolved editors to look at the following content, is it a BLP violation? It has been in the well attended article since December 2013 but maybe it is a violation and I'm not seeing it. And RfC was started on the talk page over its inclusion:

Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive". Robertson said: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." In response, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wrote a joint letter to A&E calling Robertson's remarks dangerous and inaccurate. Jesse Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has "demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel" over the issue, and, together with GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on hiatus. Dan Savage opined that he felt that Robertson's comments about African-Americans under Jim Crow laws were "much more offensive", but because in American culture issues of sex are generally discussed more than issues of race, his comments about race would be discussed far less, in favor of issues about gay sexuality.

Comments from uninvolved parties

• This material itself does not violate WP:BLP. It is adequately, albeit not exceptionally, well-sourced, and clearly falls under WP:WELLKNOWN. That said, it may be inappropriate for inclusion under other content policies. Whether the material constitutes undue weight, and whether it actually belongs in the article, is a larger question to be resolved at Talk:Duck Dynasty. On another note, the edit-warring taking place here is completely inappropriate and does not fall under the BLP exemption. If User:Collect, User:Nomoskedasticity, etc. continue to edit-war over this section, they will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For my part, there will obviously be no need. Collect, darling? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Snark noted -- as is the fact that an RfC already decided this. Collect (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC on a different article, a BLP, concerned similar content, but it was not particularly well-written, or well sourced. I feel this entire chapter on the BLP article has fallen away from a NPOV position but like others have given up on getting any traction there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you guys are going to keep referring to an RfC, could someone please link to it directly, so that the rest of us can review it? Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Phil_Robertson#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_comments_Robertson_made_about_blacks.3F Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Huh? You really mean Phil Robertson is unconnected to this article? I would love to see your reasoning on this -- especially since you earlier accused me of "pretending" about the RfC and then said 10 days was a long time ago <g>. [19] is the link which I posted several times by now at various pages where the shopping spree has occurred <g>. Collect (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your outrage is noted. Please stop whipping up hysteria and claiming BLP on everything. This is a simple content issue so invoking BLP rules because they work for your cause is only being disruptive at this point. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Invoking BLP rules because they work for your cause is only being disruptive". That is the single worst piece of wikilawyering I think I've ever seen here. "Invoking" policies and guidelines that support one's position is not only perfectly appropriate conduct is discussions like this, it's typically the most effective and the preferred way to resolve disputes. If another editor's invocation of such standards cuts against your position, and you don't have a policy/guideline based refutation, your position is generally wrong and will be rejected by the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. i did have policy-based arguments, and BLP was being used, mistakenly or falsely, or for some other reason, as an excuse to disrupt the just-started RfC, every conversation we've had on the issue, and even this thread. No evidence that BLP was ever violated has been presented despite requests and others have noted no violation as well. To continue to cause deflections based on BLP is disruptive. If I was wrong about there being a BLP violation, I would have welcomed the clarification of what i was not seeing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's rubbish. BLP policy prohibits the insertion of content whose main function is to disparage the subject or hold them up to ridicule. Wikipedia is not a place to document every embarrassing thing a celebrity has said or done. BLP requires a showing of significant encyclopedic value -- that the content is "important to the article" -- and the desire of some editors to name-and-shame people whose views they disapprove of has exactly nothing to do with that demonstration of importance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's really not the point. Some editors have a habit of thinking that they can win any dispute by shouting "BLP". In this particular case, that effort has failed, as it should have. Whether the material ends up being included or not can be determined on more sensible grounds than were being offered by some; I don't mean to presume it belongs in the article But the question is whether we can in fact have a sensible discussion about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the point here. Whether it's embarassing comments in an interview, celebrity DUIs, wardrobe malfunctions, or various modes of public snark, BLP requires s showing of significant encyclopedic value to include such content. That can't be equated with "shouting 'BLP'" Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point. BLP was reigned from on high to smote the process and every conversation until enough people said, not really a BLP violation. It was disruptive and the same maneuver employed previously. It's disruptive and takes away from actually maturely discussing issues. It's repellent to level-headed editors who don't stomach the hysterics. If there were a BLP violation, everyone would have agreed with removal. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing nothing; you're just trying to obscure the central point with empty rhetoric and insinuations of bad faith. If you're going to claim that editors who give BLP more weight than you do are immature and hysterical rather than "level-headed", you're acting far more high-handed and more disruptively than the editors whose arguments you reject. BLP sets, and is intended to set a relatively high bar (relative to other content). Wikipedia has a long and disgraceful track record of substantial editor support for even atrocious BLP violations, particularly with regard to attempts to name-and shame the unpopular; claiming that "everyone would have agreed with removal" of an actual BLP violation is impossible to reconcile with reality, so far removed that no reasonable and honest editor would do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I think your statement says everything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. There is some disingenuousness on both sides here. On one hand the RfC in question was a non-admin closure which claimed clear consensus despite three people stating concerns regarding WP:NPOV on the other hand this does strike as forum shopping and as trying to slip something in on one page that didn't meet consensus on the other - which is not appropriate. I'd suggest it might be the best course of action to re-open the original RfC and give it a few days for additional people to weigh in on the initial dispute - preferably with an Admin closure and adherence to that decision by all involved parties, no further forum shopping. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That RfC was on the BLP page, and the content while similar was simply not the same. Meanwhile the Duck Dynasty article had the same content since the beginning of the controversy, it was always there. And no acted as if the RfC should somehow be binding on anything but the BLP article it was on. There were other issues as well, but I think that's it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Having finally seen the RfC in question, I agree with Simonm223. First of all, the RfC didn't address the BLP question—a handful of commenters mentioned NPOV/WEIGHT, while most just said "Yes", "No", or provided their (irrelevant) personal viewpoints on the controversy. The overall quality of input at the RfC was quite poor, and the closure was very questionable. That said, there does appear to be a genuine forum-shopping concern, in light of which it probably makes sense to close this thread and remand the discussion back to the article talkpage for another RfC—one which will hopefully draw more useful input. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it be a dual RfC to see if the content could be used on one, both, or neither article? I don't see Collect as forum shopping to do the RfC on the Duck Dynasty article, the content has been there from the beginning. Myself and other editors just gave up on the BLP article as it was an endless source of frustration. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How many bites of the apple are needed? The fact is that the RfC on the direct BLP refused to countenance the edit, and trying to reargue there at the ten day mark sounds more like forumshopping than anything else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to cast me as forum shopping are tiresome. You removed long-standing sourced content from Duck Dynasty, if you honestly thought there was a BLP violation why did you wait since December 2013 to do so, or say anything to anyone? The RfC was on a different page, and the RfC was about that page, not that the content couldn't exist anywhere. As has been noted above there is no BLP violation, and as for furor shopping, you are the one that started the RfC, although I gladly endorse the concept. I think it violate NPOV to suppress this information but let's get more people to look at the content and see what happens. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I shan't retort -- the facts are simple including [20] and [21] concurrent with this section and the section at Talk:Duck Dynasty which currently is running not precisely how you appear to wish. When four or more fronts are opened on a single issue which was already settled at an RfC, it becomes interesting as to what it is. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of bad faith being exhibited is astounding. I am very clearly asking for advice in an area I'm not that familiar. You see, some editors choose to try to work with others to find a path forward that doesn't involve a lot of elbowing others in the face. If asking for advice is against some guideline, then the guideline should be revisited. The "issue" was not settled at a RFC, although you may feel it was. Even stated above the close was problematic, as I see the close on the stand alone controversy article, may have also been. I'm trying to find a positive way forward. But if you choose to think the worst about others then that is your choice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from involved parties

Please do not remove the following comment again -- it has been improperly removed twice now and I am damn sick and tired of cleaning up after those who violate talk page rules about removing comments

Note: The material was discussed at an RfC which closed all of a week ago -- and this is blatant forum shopping now. The consensus was clear:

There is a clear consensus, that these comments shouldn't be included. Users supporting inclusion either didn't give any rationale or just vaguely waving with the WP:NPOV policy. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP here had already commented at that RfC, and trying to get extra bites of the apple is improper IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) replaced yet again Collect (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In short -- the material failed at an RfC and this is blatant forumshopping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Philips

I also tried to start this discussion on the no original research noticeboard but thought maybe this was a more appropriate place?

Much of the article for journalist Chuck Philips is basically a description of the news articles he's written. But the references used are the articles themselves, which I believe would be a non-independent primary source and using that to write an article constitutes original research. Journalists are in a funny position with respect to Wikipedia where the thing they create is the currency we use to establish notability and verifiability. But for a Wikipedia article about a journalist I think you have to rely on articles written about that journalist by other journalists. Otherwise virtually any journalist would have enough citations floating around to warrant a Wikipedia article. Fnordware (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article has a lot of problems and relies far too much on citations to his own articles. However, there is a big difference between Chuck Philips and "virtually any journalist". He won a Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting in 1999, and the Pulitzer Prize Citation and the associated coverage in reliable sources establishes notability. There is plenty of independent coverage available describing his career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely not doubting Chuck Philips' notability in terms of having a Wikipedia article. Take out the bad sources and there's still plenty to provide material for his article, although it would be much shorter than it currently is. The main thing I'm looking for is agreement that news articles written by a journalist are not good sources for a Wikipedia article about that journalist. And I think it might be helpful if that were mentioned in a guideline somewhere. I happened to notice it in Chuck Philips' article, but I also saw it in Touré's and I'm sure there are many many others. I'm happy to take this discussion elsewhere if there's a more appropriate place for it. Fnordware (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that articles written by a journalist most certainly do not themselves establish the notability of that journalist. However, I do not see a BLP issue here, so much as an issue of the quality of sourcing. Philips is a bit controversial though. I also agree that it can be tough to find sources about a journalist when the search engines spit out a long list of articles by that journalist. So, if you discuss this overall issue elsewhere, please let me know. I would like to participate in that discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've also been discussing it on the no original research noticeboard, although I'm not sure that's the best place either. I've created yet another discussion on the Identifying reliable sources talk page. Maybe the answer is that these sources are bad, and so the text refers to them is simply unsourced. Fnordware (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I had flagged the John Philips Chuck Philips article for multiple problems: Original research, autobiography, and POV. A user removed the flag without discussion. Does anyone care to (dis)agree with my assessment? Fnordware (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean Chuck Philips right? I've put the tags back, as per my post on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ack, yes! Sorry, I've also been dealing with John M. Phillips and I guess I got my wires crosses for a second there. Thanks for reverting the changes. Fnordware (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

He has a Polk, a Pulitzer, a National Association of Black Journalists award. The articles are included as reference only. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FamilyTreeLegends.com

This cite is used on hundreds of articles but I'm concerned in this case it might be overreaching.

MK Nobilette, is a finalist on American Idol. I just did this revert as it is giving out her name and date of birth citing this website. Was that a good call? Does it also need to be erased permanently? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for WP:BLPPRIMARY. Good job removing it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Input is needed, and would be greatly appreciated. I've made two revisions on Anjem Choudary which were reverted by User:Parrot of Doom and User:Bencherlite. You can read the exchanges on Anjem Choudary (Talk). I know better than to get into an edit war, so I did not intentionally change anything after the reverts were made by the two editors mentioned. I remained neutral, maintained an open-mind, and started a discussion on Choudary Talk. I visited the revision history to review and compare the differences between edits in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind their decision. For reasons unbeknownst to me, clicking on cur or prev inadvertently triggered reverts, even though I never used the undo or restore command. Hopefully someone can explain why it is happening because the inadvertent reverts have escalated into vandalism notices, and later into page protection by Admin Darkwind. In fact, it happened to me again today on Darkwind's talk page, of all places, so I sent him an email explaining what happened. Could it be something Safari is causing? Whatever it is, I hope someone can provide an answer.

Back on topic - my revisions for Choudary can be seen here. I edited only the first three paragraphs of the article. The rest remains in tact. Back in January 2014 on Choudary Talk, User:66.225.160.9 recommended updating the article to include mention of Choudary's interview on BBC Radio 4 in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial. No updates were made until my recent attempt to include mention of the connection between one of the murderers of Lee Rigby, and Al-Muhajiroun, a terrorist organization that was co-founded by Choudary. That part of the revision was omitted along with everything else in my edit. I was under the impression editors were supposed to collaborate, not WP:OWN, and prevent anyone else from editing or updating it, especially important updates. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with Choudary which is why I brought it here for discussion. There is an obvious POV/omission issue that needs to be resolved. To date, three editors are in agreement that Choudary needs review, including myself, Sportfan5000, and Coretheapple.

I also felt it was necessary to bring awareness to other POV/omissions in other bios and organizations of the same genre in hopes of finding common ground, and possibly even a standard that editors can easily follow. Admin DougWeller suggested bringing my concerns here. The common denominator for my examples are Islamism, Sharia, Islamophobia, terrorists, and extremists. I'll start with Pamela Geller who is portrayed in Wiki as being known "primarily for her criticism of Islamism and opposition to Islamic activities and causes.". That statement is only partially true, and there is no balance to the article whatsoever - no mention of the awards, or commendations Geller has received for her work. It goes on to say that her viewpoints are described as "anti-Islamic or Islamophobic" which is clearly POV, and not the result of a doctor's diagnosis of a "phobia", so whoever described her viewpoints are guilty of POV themselves. The lead-in further portrays her as a co-founder of organizations that were labeled as "hate groups by UK government officials". A "hate group" label is clearly a POV issue, and in no way portrays actual events, or self-proclamation. What would happen if one of the groups Choudary founded was labeled as a "hate group"? There is no mention of opposing views showing that Geller's organizations were given recognition and awards for their efforts in the U.S. Rather than go into lengthy detail, I hope editors will take the time to read the following, and provide input.

Please compare the editing of Pamela Geller vs Anjem Choudary vs Steven Emerson. Please do the same for SIOA vs Al-Muhajiroun vs Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Please pay attention to the "Series On Islamophobia" as noted in the SIOA article. Is there a similar series on Islamist Extremism showing a network of known terrorist organizations and offshoots of those organizations that were banned from the U.K., including al-Muhajiroun, Al Ghurabaa, Islam4UK, and the list goes on, all of which were either founded or presided over by Choudary?

I look forward to reading the responses. Thank you in advance… Ms Atsme (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't forum shopping is very close to it. There's an open RFC. To me bringing this here while another process is going is dubious.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesar Milan - the Dog Whisperer

Cesar Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a famous dog trainer but with controversial methods. This has affected the article for years. Yesterday two sections were removed from the criticism section (now retitled controversy). One section, criticising his methods and his show the Dog Whisperer, was removed with the edit summary "this belongs in Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan, not this BLP". I don't understand this as it was about both the show and his methods. A second section about a campaign against these methods backed by a number of well known organisations such as the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, The World Society for the Protection of Animals, " Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour was removed with an edit summary that it was not a reliable source.[22]. I replaced it as I strongly disagree that it is not a reliable source for the campaign and the views of the sponsoring organisation, and it's been removed again. Here is the press release[23] and here[24] is a page about the sponsoring organisations. User:Dreadstar has brought this up on the talk page, asking if it is an organisation known for fact checking, etc. I don't think that's the point here. The edit itself says "In March 2010, various preeminent UK animal welfare, behaviour, training, canine and veterinary organisations issued a joint statement in which they warned against the dog training techniques used by Cesar Milan: "The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour." I see no reason to think that the website is not telling the truth about this. I also think that the other paragraph that was removed should be in both articles as it is about his methods. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

The third paragraph of Eliot Spitzer#Legal career (merged from Early life of Eliot Spitzer, now a redirect, in this 2009 edit) reads

Spitzer devised a plan to set up his own sweatshop in the city's garment district, turning out shirts, pants and sweaters, and hiring 30 laborers. The shop manager eventually got close to the Gambinos, and officials were able to plant a bug in their office. The Gambinos, rather than being charged with extortion – which was hard to prove – were charged with antitrust violations. Joseph and Thomas Gambino, the latter being an extremely high-ranking member, and two other defendants took the deal and avoided jail by pleading guilty, paying $12 million in fines and agreeing to stay out of the business.

citing a Time magazine paywalled article. If anyone has ready access to Time could you please check the veracity of the "sweatshop" claim and nature, if any, of our subject's link to these organized criminals? It's all very vague. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look (you caught me at a good time, just got to campus). The text in our article is supported impeccably by the Time source, e.g. use of the word sweatshop and liberal discussion of the Gambinos. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In isolation, the Gambinos bit makes no sense to me. Did Spitzer have any connection with them, or just his shop-floor manager. What is the meaning of the "extortion" claim? Was Spitzer or his manager being extorted? Was Spitzer involved in bugging the office? Was it his/the manager's office or Gambino's office? Did the Gambinos agree to stay out of Spitzer's business, or the garment industry in general? Do you see waht I mean? It's vague. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh. I get it. It was a sting operation. There's a non-paywalled Vanity Fair article on it. I'll read up and try to clarify it later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius Schilder

The following passage is highly contentious:

Although highly esteemed, after contradicting allegations of sexual abuse of a boy, many years ago, and of which there was no proof, it is claimed that the Vatican induced the bishop when in his late sixties into retirement. Schilder currently does not celebrate masses in public and exercises no pastoral tasks. He lives with the Mill Hill Missionaries in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.[3][4] --END OF PASSAGE

Please note: According to Fons Eppink, a senior member of Cornelius Schilder's own congregation (Mill Hill), bishop Schilder was removed from the Ngong bishopric by the Vatican for committing sexual abuse. Furthermore, Mr Eppink stated on the record that Schilder's right to say mass was revoked by the Mill Hill congregation, also as a punishment for committing sexual abuse. The entry on Schilder now visible on Wikipedia has been whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.114.190 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated gossip from a member of the congregation is not a reliable source. We need a much better source than that to justify inclusion of such serious allegations about a living person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Health Services Union expenses affair

Deals with living persons. The issue at hand is an infobox [25] listing one person seven separate times in the infobox as "name of scandal", "participant", "convicted", "charges" (twice), and "verdict" and a second person given six separate mentions in the same infobox, and the listing of unnamed "family and associates" as conspirators in the infobox. I suggested that a single mention of each person is quite sufficient, but this is using a sledgehammer to make a point of their corruption (and the corrupt family and associates). Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Devyani Khobragade

Not necessarily a violation as such, just felt that people with experience in BLP might want to cast an eye over this one to ensure everything is appropriately neutral and fairly weighted. Draft:Devyani Khobragade --_nonsense ferret 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have two wholly negative articles that involve this person, not sure why we need a biography as well. I hope that never makes it to article space. It's like a more advanced version of WP:BLP1E called BLP2E... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It has now been published - Devyani Khobragade - I am not sure what to make of it all, I expect we've seen notorious serial killers with less unrelentingly negative coverage. Bit of a campaign, of sorts. --_nonsense ferret 08:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

David John Pearson

Not sure where to take this, but I'll try here. On the face of it, the article - and the process of its development - would seem to contravene a whole raft of policies on notability, conflict of interest, and potential sockpuppetry as well. Could be a meaty one to get into. Can someone with more experience in such matters take a look at it, and see what you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh Boparan

I believe a major contributor to this page has a conflict of interest i.e that they work for the subject and thus are biased. verifiable but undesirable content has been removed by this user. Purplejumper (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Herman Branover

The article on Herman Branover Herman Branover is a blantant misrepresentation.

The claims of status as an educator in the Jewish world, and the phrases "known in the scientific community", "pioneer" and "led to many spin-off...", are weasel words. There are no cites to support any of this, and it seems doubtful that any will be found.

The authors of the Wikipedia article want to create a myth around his scientific credentials to support his writings on religious subjects.

Indeed his writings on science and religion often grossly misrepresent scientific positions (for example see his book "Science in the Light of Torah"), and as a scientist, his h-index is modest at best (see Google Scholar).

I submit that after correcting the page to more accurately describe his work and writings, it should be locked against further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.226.6 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, this biography should be improved, as should a large percentage of our 4,461,942 articles. You can improve this article or any of those others at any time.Just click the "edit" button and get to work. Please explain why you believe that the problems with this particular article are so severe that it should be " locked against further edits". That is an extreme solution to what appears to me to be routine problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Dear Wiki,

Please help me to resolve this issue:

On the page for Gordon Curran Stewart, the following warnings/disclaimers appear, all made in December 2013:

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (December 2013

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2013)

Regarding subjectivity: I have read through the article and have removed a sentence that was subjective. Aside from that sentence I do not see anything else that could be deemed to "promote[] the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Please, can you check the article and see if the corrections are sufficient and if they are then remove the warning from the top of the page? If the corrections are insufficient, then please let me know exactly what needs to be changed so that the appropriate edits can be made.

Regarding neutrality: It is not specified on the talk page what exactly is disputed. It says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." The article was accepted onto Wiki as a result of an editing process that involved a requirement of neutrality. Certainly there is nothing on the page that can be considered to be "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". And there is nothing on the page that is potentially libelous. Is it possible to either learn more about the "dispute" so that it can be remedied, and if not then to remove the notice referring to a dispute?

Regarding copy editing: A small number of minor edits have been made, and the article now appears to no longer require copy editing. Please, can you remove the notice?

Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdelamare (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be rather a lot of content in that biography that has no reference --_nonsense ferret 18:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Don Mellett

There are absolutely no references at all on this bio, which contains considerable information implicating others in criminal activity. Seems to be eligible for deletion under WP:BLP1E. Unsure what to do about the article. I don't have the time or desire to research the event, but all the unreferenced negative info about living people seems to be a problem. John from Idegon (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the subject of the article dies in 1926, and the other people mentioned were presumably adults at that time, it is improbable that any living person is involved, so neither this page nor WP:BLP1E is relevant. However, if you wish to nominate the article for deletion as lacking evidence of notability, then go ahead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Hi,

Someone as been making some questionable additions to Howard Stern's Talk Page. It does seem that these edits are simply intended to take shots a Stern and his wife. Similar edits were made to the Howard Stern itself, but the page was protected (diff). Apparently this IP editor figured out that such protection does not extend to the article's talk page. Still fairly new at Wikipedia, so not sure what to do. If I'm asking in the wrong place about this, then apologies in advance. Maybe a more experienced editor or an admin can check it out? Thanks - Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I warned the IP, next time I'll request a block. You can do so too at WP:AIV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed like a pattern had been established, but I just wanted to hear what others thought. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tipu Aziz

In the article about Tipu Aziz it says in the first paragraph:

"Tipu Zahed Aziz (born 1956)" which is in contrary to the infobox, where it says:

"Born 1966 (age 47–48) East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)"

I can't find any reliable information about his age. If anybody does know his real age, please feel free to edit. Rosannn (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

kathirlak

Kathirlak grew up in Tamil Nabuand got into wildlife photography @ freelance photographer in 2012. After quit his graduation, he practicing as a photography.Now he is full time into photography teaching, conducting Workshops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathirlak (talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Murry Salby has just been added to this excuse for an article, the citation used for the contentious statement of fact is an opinion piece in the Guardian. I was under the impression that opinion pieces are not to be used for statements of fact on a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Added a second reference to an article critiquing his anti-anthropogenic warming stance. I don't like the fact this list is even given the time of day on Wikipedia, but if it has to exist it might as well be accurate. Looks like Salby has earned his position on this particular wall of shame. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The list is full of such stuff -- I would note that the "volcano issue" was just raised by mainstream folks as a reason for why climate change has not proceeded on its projected course. And, IMHO, opinion pieces are not really suitable for making any claims of fact at all. [26] Guardian actual article. Collect (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Peethambara_Kurup

The religion marked in the article as Pervertism is defamatory and politically motivated. Thanks for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.173.195 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Scott

I am acquainted with Mike Scott (musician) and he has sent me a concerned email about his own article and that of Camille O'Sullivan. His remarks are essentially that he feels his privacy is being violated as a result of recent edits by what seems to be the single-purpose account BurlesqueCoversGalére (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). I have amended both articles [27] [28] but I am requesting more eyes/views on this as although I have been around the block I almost never edit BLPs and am not familiar with the relevant protocols. In essence Mr Scott is saying:

1. I am not divorced.
2. It is a matter of record that I recently became a parent.
3. The name of the mother of the child is not the public domain and speculation about this matter is a violation of his, the mother and his child’s privacy.

I have alerted the above user to this thread [29]. I will also inform Mr. Scott about the revision deletion option above. Ben MacDui 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

António Janet

António Lopes Jonet competed at the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games in Men's Modern Pentathlon. I tried to correct his name which is written with an "o" not "a", as it is in the wrongful source, but I wasn't successful. He is also not a living person, as he died in September 21, 2007. My sources are: http://www.geneall.net/P/per_page.php?id=578684 and I'm his grand-nephew. SakasFixe (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't belong here: the talk page of the article would be more appropriate, possibly with a {{helpme}} tag to attract other editors. Nevertheless, I will comment on it here. The source you give suggests that there existed a person called "Antonio Cid Juzarte Lopes Jonet", born on the date stated in the Wikipedia article, and he may well have been the athlete in question, but the source doesn't say so. A Google search for "António Jonet" Olympics 1952 produces no hits at all, while "António Janet" Olympics 1952 produces 132 hits, but none of those that I have checked looks like a reliable source. Can you provide a reliable source that says that his name was Jonet and that he competed in the 1952 Olympic Games? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Google searches for "António Janet" Jogos Olímpicos 1952 and for "António Jonet" Jogos Olímpicos 1952 are no more helpful, and Portuguese Wikipedia does not have an article about him as either Janet or Jonet, with or without the "Lopes". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandra_Bravo

Dear Sirs, I would like to respectfully ask that the Wikipedia web page about Alejandra Bravo would be completely eliminated. During part of 2012 and all 2013 year this page has posted biased information, without hard evidence about myself. This page has had multiple changes by people who clearly seek to discredit me and which have severely harmed my public image. This page contain poorly sourced material, with libelous potentially intentions. Most of the comments have been based on materials that were published in Mexican newspapers with information out of context, resulting defamatory. Wikipedia pages should not mislead the reader into believing that something false is real. In addition Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions, it is an encyclopedia and therefore the information described on the Alejandra Bravo’s page does not correspond to encyclopedic information.

If you want specific information on the incorporated slurs, I can mention some examples: 1. In the Wikipedia page Alejandra Bravo in Spanish said: “En septiembre de 2012 un grupo de investigadores publicó una revisión crítica sobre los modelos de acción de los insecticidas de Bacillus thuringiensis en el cual se concluía que los modelos mexicanos no eran replicables, basándose en el análisis de once publicaciones de Alejandra Bravo y su esposo Mario Soberón.4” (In September 2012 a group of researchers published a critical review of the models of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides in which they concluded that Mexicans model was not replicable, based on the analysis of eleven publications of Alejandra Bravo and her husband Mario Soberón.4 "). Reference 4 (Vachont , Vincent ; Laprade , Reynald , Schwartz, Jean -Louis (2012 ) ' Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins : A critical review "( in English ) Science Direct Accessed . . February 15, 2014), does not mention anywhere that the data on Bravo and Soberon were not reproducible. Similarly, it did not mention at all that eleven publications under authorship of these Mexican researchers were questionable. So this whole paragraph is a defamation that used a scientific article, that is solid, to support their false arguments. This paragraph is misleading real information it is a tort of false light.

2. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish said that " ... Debido a esto ambos científicos fueron separados de sus cargos, …” (Because of this both scientists were removed from their positions). Bravo and Soberon were never separated from their university positions; they are professors, senior researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, UNAM. This statement was a lie published in the newspaper La Jornada. You mentioned that you will be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. A newspaper publication should not be taken as a reliable source of facts, especially if they were not true. This is also a clear defamation to Bravo and Soberon status.

3. The conclusion of the evaluation committee mentioned in Wikipedia are not correct. Again misleading information, presenting written statements out of context, completely biased, are damaging the researchers. The main conclusion of the commission was that the modifications of the figures did not change at all the scientific content of these publications and for this reason they did not recommended to remove any publication.

4. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish it states that "… También trascendió que los científicos habían aceptado su error, comunicándose con los editores de las revistas de aquellas publicaciones afectadas, quienes no pidieron correcciones o fe de erratas.4…” (... It was also learned that scientists had accepted his mistake by contacting the publishers of the journals of the affected publications, who did asked corrections.4). Bravo and Soberon sent corrections to their publications for " Motus propio" without anyone 's asked which were accepted by the journals. No retraction was done. This was reported by the La Jornada newspaper but did not take into account for the Wikipedia editors even thought that this newspaper has been the main source of information from this Wikipedia page. Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie

5. The Wikipedia page in Spanish states "…por el hecho de haber «manipulado» las imágenes en 2 de las publicaciones. El caso llamó la atención de la Oficina de Integridad Científica (ORI) de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud de Estados Unidos (NIH), la cual revisó los hechos…”( ... the fact of having" manipulated " images in 2 publications. The case caught the attention of the Office of Scientific Integrity (ORI ) of the [ [National Institutes of Health (USA) | National Institutes of Health in the United States ] ] (NIH ) , which reviewed the facts ... " This is another slanderous lie that has caused a lot of damage. ORI 's office did not review the case because the manipulation of images of two articles caught their attention. ORI review the case because the accused researchers had an active grant from the NIH. The ORI is responsible for monitoring complaints of misconduct in biomedical research projects that receive support from agencies related to public health services in USA. The final ORI 's report concludes that Bravo and Soberon researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) did not commit misconduct. They did not suspend the financial support that NHI gives to Bravo and Soberon. This was reported by La Jornada and by the Mexican Academy of Sciences: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-la-ori-que-mario-soberon-y-alejandra-bravo-no-incurrieron-en-falta/

6. The description of the actions of the University Rights Ombudsman was incorrect. The UNAM-University Rights Ombudsman (DDU), determined to initiate an investigation for possible effects on rights of Dr. Alejandra Bravo and Dr. Mario Soberon. Advocacy recommended terminating the sanctions given the large number of violations of rights of these university researchers. The authorities involved accepted the recommendation of DDU and researchers can receive students and recovered their academic leadership of research groups at Biotechnology Institute of UNAM. This case was closed, researchers since both researchers showed that they did not commit any scientific fraud to the university authorities, to authorities ORI NHI, and to the scientific journals. Even more, it was published recently a scientific paper in the journal Biochemical Journal in which Bravo and Soberon showed experimental scientific evidence demonstrating that the model of the mechanism of action of Cry toxins that they propose remains valid.

Finally it is important to mention that the same Mexicans newspapers that actively participated in this case publishing erroneous information also reported that communications in the newspapers contribute to generate an important public image damage of Bravo and Soberon, as well as harm their reputation and prestige as scientists.

The newspaper La Jornada reported that “A partir de la intervención de la Defensoría se trata de un caso cerrado, pero que produjo un gran daño a dos científicos mexicanos” (From the intervention of the Ombudsman is a close case, but that resulted in severe damage to two scientists" Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/10/15/index.php?section=ciencias&article=a03a1cie&partner=rss

http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-en-la-unam-caso-de-alejandra-bravo-y-mario-soberon/

Finally the ex-rector of UNAM Dr. Juan Ramon de la Fuente wrote about the participation DDU-UNAM and said “Sobresale la UNAM, por supuesto, que supo poner en juego las fortalezas de la ciencia, para eviitar que dos de los mejores investigadores de los que Mexico dispone, Alejandra Bravo y Mario Soberón, vieran truncadas sus carreras, victimas de una suspicacia excesiva y de esa terrible distorcion vital que experimentan algunos ante el exito de otros: la envidia.” (The UNAM excels, of course, who knew how to bring into play the strengths of science, for stop that two of the best researchers of Mexico, Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, saw their careers cut short, victims of excessive suspicion and a terrible vital distortion that some people experienced in front of the success of others: the envy. Ref: http://www.eluniversalmas.com.mx/editoriales/2013/10/66876.php

For all the above reasons, I suggest and request that the Wikipedia Alejandra Bravo’s page will be removed completely. A severe damage has been done and since the case is closed, all arguments must stop immediately. You mentioned that Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Then I just ask that to keep your word and make it true. Attentively, Alejandra Bravo

--Yocize2 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

:You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no experience of using or editing Spanish Wikipedia, so I can't tell you how to go about raising the issue there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We've also got an article on the person here and Yocize2 removed a sizeable chunk related to a controversy here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that after making the above post, and was writing a corrected version of my post when you edit-conflicted me. Here is the corrected version:

You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. As far as the English Wikipedia article is concerned, I see that you have removed all mention of the incident, rather than adjusting it to give a more balanced account. If my understanding is correct, it is accepted that you did falsify images, but it was decided that the sanctions taken against you were excessive, in which case it is not obvious why all mention of the incident should be suppressed. In any case, the fact that you believe that the account given of this one incident has been misleading is scarcely adequate reason to delete the whole article. (I also see that you are currently blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for repeatedly removing content from an article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)