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.

Elizabeth Truss

• Elizabeth Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've never contributed to Wikipedia before (sorry!) but I've been moved to write by moral outrage. I visited Elizabeth Truss's wikipedia because I saw her name in the news and I wondered if it was the same prospective parliamentary candidate I had recalled reported as having an affair many years ago. It was, but I only found this out through other websites. Looking into the history of the page I found that references to the affair have been consistently removed by the user Upswift, going back several years. References to the (widely reported, and not denied) affair have been independently inserted by many different users but consistently deleted by Upswift. Upswift says here that the fact that the 'sensitive private matter occurs several years before the subject became a public figure is in contravention of the BLP guidelines.' I have read through the guidelines (although of course I defer to other user's greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia) but I cannot find any reference to this guideline. Anyway, this would appear to be an odd principle - the idea that if someone had been involved in something noteworthy prior to them becoming a public figure that information should be withheld from their Wikipedia article. In any case, Upswift is arguing that the subject only became a public figure on 'being elected to Parliament in 2010'; this would appear to me to be disingenuous. The affair was widely reported on when Elizabeth Truss was on the Conservative candidates A-list and seeking to be elected. The affair was with a member of the Shadow Cabinet and even so both parties were central to the news coverage (The Daily Mail headline: A-list Tory's affair with married Cameron high-flyer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-387015/A-list-Torys-affair-married-Cameron-high-flyer.html); i.e. it's not like she was a nobody who had an affair with a public figure - she was as much a part of the story as him. The idea that someone only becomes a public figure when elected I would suggest is problematic (how are the public meant to find out about the people they are thinking of voting for?!) Surely when someone puts themselves up for national office they become a public figure (however minor). Upswift says, referencing the BLP guidelines: 'in particular, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Quoting this seems to me to misunderstand the guidlines - Wikipedia is not being the primary vehicle for spreading claims as the affair has already been widely reported on and has not been denied by the parties involved. Upswift mentions the need to protect the family of Elizabeth Truss, which is an admirable concern. In the article the name of Elizabeth's spouse is given, and the article mentions that she has daughters (not named). (I note in passing that Upswift refers to the BLP guidelines about 'Privacy of names'- her quote from this section seems to me to be taken out of context). Presumably Upswift is suggesting that these parties will be hurt by being reminded of a painful incident; it is an interesting topic of debate whether information should be removed from wikipedia to spare individuals' embarassment; but in any case we need not have this debate as the story is clearly widely accessible through various news agencies - so I am not clear how the censorship of wikipedia will protect these individuals. Another debate that could be had is whether the public has a right to know about what some consider moral transgressions, from an individual's past, when they are seeking or holding public office. But again, that debate is not even relevant here because the events were already noteworthy at the time and had an impact on her professional life! The news of the affair meant that she faced a vote to remove her as a Conservative parliamentary candidate. Indeed the information about the impact on Truss's career is clearer on Mark Field's page (with whom she had the affair) than it is on Truss's page!

The only (very implicit) information on the affair in the current article is worth quoting below, in text originally entered by Upswift (22 Nov 2011). Not only is the text a little rambling, it is also clearly sanctified - ie withholding the rather pertinent point that the 'withheld information' in question was about her affair. As a member of the public who came to find out about that incident, that seems a lot more important than a lot of the information that is included in this paragraph: "In October 2009, she was selected for the Norfolk seat by members of the constituency Conservative Association, and won over 50% of the vote in the first round of the final against five other candidates, one of whom was local to the county.[16] [17] However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet,[18] objected to Truss’s selection, claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members.[19] A motion was proposed to terminate Truss’s candidature, but this was defeated by 132 votes to 37 at a general meeting of the Association’s members three weeks later.[20] "

I note one reason Upswift gave for removing information about the affair, on this instance in 2011 (although Upswift has used a whole range of justifications for censoring the page across the years), was "the reason for the failed deselection attempt was also due to the perception of how the Con Party had handled the selection process." Perhaps this is true, I was not there, but Upswift cites no sources and this is completely at odds with the way the news was reported, eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8327362.stm

Upswift has quoted the BLP policy, but what the BLP policy does clearly say is that: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." To cap it off the very example given in the BLP policy is about a politician having an alleged affair! This affair in this instance is not even alleged - it has not been denied and it had a direct impact on her political career. A variety of different users have tried to add this information over the years and as far as I can see it is only Upswift, consistently Upswift, who has removed this information. Finally, the two people who replied to the topic when brought up on the BLP noticeboard in February 2013 both suggested that the information about the affair should be included in the article, but Upswift removed it anyway. In summary, to me this all smacks of censorship. But anyway, you don't need to take it from me as the page history speaks for itself.

The information about the affair has - at different times - been included in (and removed by Upswift from) the 'Personal life' section and the 'Candidate' section. I will not presume to put it back in myself, but I appeal to any reasonable disinterested parties that it should be included. Please sort this out, good people of Wikipedia.

PREVIOUS BLP NOTICEBOARD COMMENTS: Elizabeth Truss

Extended content
talk

So the point is that Wikipedia shouldn't be the primary vehicle spreading negative information. If the only source for the affair were the Daily Mail, then we should leave it out, as the Daily Mail is often considered borderline as a source, specifically because it tends towards scandals. Here, however, we have a plethora of better sources documenting the affair: The Guardian; The New Statesman; even the three called the UK newspaper of record, The Telegraph; The Independent; The Times. It is hard to ask for better sources. It is worth a sentence or two; and no, it is not sufficient to write "information about the candidate had been withheld", if The Times and The Telegraph and The Independent all believe it's worth writing that she was accused of having an affair, then we should too. --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it seems this would meet the basic inclusion threshold for negative information, as it had an impact on the subject's career. But I'm going to defer to Upswift and see if he can explain his rationale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. The original reporting of the "affair" appeared (as far as I am aware) in the Mail in 2006. After she had been selected for her seat in October 2009, the Mail repeated these claims. The coverage in the Mail prompted the attempt to deselect her, which itself was covered by the newspapers of record that GRuban mentions. These newspapers make reference to an affair in relation to the Mail's reporting of it triggering a reaction from a section of the constituency membership, as they felt that information had been withheld from them. (I added the results of the deselection vote to indicate that the concern was a minority view.) My points, as I made in the BLP Noticeboard last year, still stand in that the fuss re the Turnip Taleban is mentioned and backed up by cited references. It is not Wikipedia's role to repeat tabloid gossip itself, but the implications arising (from the reactions of some who were influenced by it) is covered, and cited references are provided.

It should be noted that at least 5 of the users who have inserted the information that I have removed have been blocked by Wikipedia administrators as sockpuppets. It was therefore entirely right that their edits should have been reversed. I notice that the references to her on Mark Field's page were removed (by Collect) in February 2013, but later added back by 213.105.28.79, one of the IP addresses that was temporarily blocked for sockpuppetry. I would agree with what Collect wrote and that this does not belong there in this detail. I also feel that the wording used by these blocked users, saying that she "admitted" an affair was somewhat loaded.

Having initiated the discussion of this matter in the first place, 2 responses were added by others (one from an IP address that had made only 1 previous contribution to Wikipedia, which was to vandalise an article) - I addressed their points in my subsequent reply on the Noticeboard, and no further response was received to challenge what I had written.

The Wikipedia page for Truss mentions her husband's name, and so links him (and by extension, their children) to the personal life section. I think that "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" is very strong here, so I stand by what I wrote on the BLP Noticeboard on 3 February 2013. I don't see it as censorship, but a non-sensationalist view of the subject, which is something different. I don't think that "moral outrage" is sufficient to justify inclusion of titillating aspects of tabloid gossip. Note also that political figures are bound to create opposing viewpoints and it is realistic to assume that opponents will wish to include what they perceive as negative details. But I don't think that should override the fair and objective non-sensationalist style of writing - something that I have sought to do, but I don't pretend that I always get it right - hence my raising the issue myself in the first instance on the BLP Noticeboard. Upswift (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Upswift: Thank you, very well put. I have no problem with the way the information is presented at this point in the article. You are correct that we are not a tabloid, and the paragraph in question ultimately does reference this controversy. It's certainly better than what has been added in the past. And I'd agree that WP:NPF applies here as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, still believe we should mention that it was an alleged affair. As the IP writes, this is exactly the case described in WP:PUBLICFIGURE - a politician accused of an affair, covered by a multiplicity of reliable newspapers. Surely that hypothetical case can be assumed to have hypothetical less prominent relatives; it's not much of an affair if the two people involved are single. We aren't writing much of an article if we say - "There was a scandal, but we won't tell you what it was about." We don't have to dwell on it, but a sentence or two seems required. --GRuban (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: I won't deny your point, certainly. How would you word a change to that? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

GRuban, we evidently don't agree. The accusation of the affair was made in a tabloid newspaper. The "reliable newspapers" make reference to it only in the context of the subsequent attempt to deselect her which was triggered by the repeat of the accusations in the Mail. That controversy is specifically referenced in the Candidate section, as FreeRangeFrog acknowledges, and there are cited references included. You can argue the other way as you have done, but on BLP issues it is right to err on the side of caution, and, in my view, the existing words strike an appropriate balance. Upswift (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all right; I'll try to convince you, but it would be a dull world if everyone agreed all the time, wouldn't it? :-) If the accusation had been left in a tabloid, we would also leave it. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it once the reliable sources do. It's neither the first nor the last scandal that was first broken in a tabloid that we cover, for example Gary_Hart#1988 presidential campaign and the Donna Rice affair; John Edwards extramarital affair. This affair does not seem as influential as those, so shouldn't get as much play, which is why I recommend a sentence or two only. And as for the wording, for the Frog, I'd change the current "claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members." to "claiming that she had attempted to cover up a 2005 affair with Conservative MP Mark Field." and use The Telegraph and The Independent articles as references. (I can't see the entirety of the Times article, so don't know if it names Field, but the Telegraph and Independent both do, and they also seem clear that the affair took place, even the Times seems to only use "accused" about the coverup, not the affair.) --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. The fact that something was once published in a tabloid doesn't mean it is forever off limits; once it's a subject of proper coverage in a proper source it might merit inclusion here. I do think the "withheld information" treatment isn't sufficiently informative in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, but suggest that the initial reporting of the affair be definitively attributed to the Mail, including an inline explanation of the Mail being a gossip rag. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, which are well-made, although I'm still not convinced, as the instances of Gary Hart and John Edwards relate to activities after the person had already been elected and become a public figure. Also, it doesn't address the WP:NPF issue and the presumption in favour of family members. In any case, the words she "attempted to cover up" are stronger than implied in the two cited references: the Telegraph says "kept secret" which is a more passive activity, and the Independent article says that it was Conservative Central Office that withheld the information, rather than Truss. Upswift (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would accept "claiming that she had kept secret" or "claiming that she had not revealed". --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Although an improvement, and backed up by the Telegraph citation, even these two phrasings do not reflect the context of what she obliged to reveal, and are contradicted by the wording of the Eastern Daily Press article (already referenced in the article) and the quote by Sir Jeremy Bagge in the Independent article. At the selection meeting, Truss was not asked to reveal anything - Sir Jeremy makes clear in his Independent quote that it was Conservative Central Office (CCO) that was responsible for this withheld information at the meeting. CCO would undoubtedly have been aware at the application stage of the selection of Truss's past - I presume that Truss herself would have volunteered the information at this stage; I have certainly seen no indication that she didn't. So, as she was not given an opportunity to raise it at the selection meeting itself, it is (given the context of the selection protocol) misleading (whatever the Telegraph says) to suggest that she herself did not reveal it. The apparent contradiction in the reporting of the Telegraph and Independent illustrates the danger of relying on what are regarded as "reliable sources". The fact is that the information was withheld from members at the meeting, as the article currently states. Given my various earlier comments, I am not persuaded that further details on this are required in any case. Upswift (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the curent wording. It is quite an elegant way of presenting the agreed facts in a non-sensationalist way, supported by references. Irrespective of the other reasons already listed, reference has already been made here to WP:NPF. One of the elements of this policy is that Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care in relation to people that are not well known. This clearly applies in this situation with regard to her husband. He has not done anything to court publicity in relation to this, yet reference here to his wife would directly affect his reputation. You could argue that if he had subsequently divorced her citing adultery then that would have been a proactive step on his part that could be referenced. But he hasn't. So this alone makes it a different situation to the contrary examples that have been provided in this discussion. It is not desirable for the affair to be specifically mentioned in the article. The original poster on this thread admits that he or she is motivated by moral outrage but that is not something that should motivate Wikipedia articles. We are better than that. Patrick Brand (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As written above, every affair has a hurt spouse (if not two!), that's what makes it an affair. It's not much of a scandal if it's a relationship between two singles. And, as written above, an affair just like this one, is exactly the situation in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so presumably the damage to hypothetical spouse has been taken into account. Avoiding damage to the innocent spouse doesn't mean we can't write about any politicians with affairs that get long mileage in The Times and The Telegraph and The Independent and The Guardian and The New Statesman, we absolutely can and should. Otherwise we just aren't doing justice to the article and our readers. "We are better than that" does not mean we can't write about anything that harms anyone, we'd be an encyclopedia of blank pages then. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation here is not analogous to the one you describe. The accusation of the affair in this case was made before she was an elected politician and was, at the time, WP:LPI. Just because something is mentioned in reliable sources does not mean that justice is not being done being done to our readers if it is not included. In fact, all information on Wikipedia should be sourced as much as possible. The rules are tighter for living people, and, in particular, there are specific policies for WP:NPF which apply here. The burden of evidence is on those adding material, and it has not been shown that this has been satisfied. The dispute is mentioned in the Candidate section. You say that we would be an encyclopedia of blank pages if we can't write about anything that harms anyone; this suggests that you believe Wikipedia should contain only information that harms someone which is an odd statement. Patrick Brand (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, we shouldn't write about Barack Obama's birthplace, since he was very low profile while being born! The important part isn't how low profile she was at the time, but that she is a notable politician now, and that this is something that has gotten extensive coverage by reliable sources now. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back making a second comment, perhaps I shall become a proper contributor yet! I just wanted to clarify something that had been misinterpreted from my original post, and then to highlight some obvious problems with Upswift's (and now Patrick Brand's) position. So, to clarify, my 'moral outrage' does not relate to Truss's affair, which I know very little detail of; it relates to the way her Wikipedia page has been consistently censored over a period of years. Is this indeed censoring or just reporting the facts in a non-sensationalist way, as Upswift (and now Patrick Brand) would suggest? To focus the discussion, compare a wording that would satisfy me (and which I hereby propose) with the current wording favoured by Upswift. My proposed wording: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about her extramarital affair had been withheld from the members." [or better - ie more informatively - 'her extramarital affair with Conservative MP Mark Field']

The current wording: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members."

Upswift's comments imply that my proposed wording would be 'sensationalist,' 'titillating,' repetition of 'tabloid gossip'. It is worth remarking on Upswift's attempts to undermine the fact of the affair (which seems at odds with his otherwise excellent knowledge of the incident). Upswift mentions the "affair" in quotation marks, he says the "accusation of the affair" was made in a tabloid newspaper, he says "it is not Wikipedia's role to repeat tabloid gossip". It is naff to quote dictionary definitions but the implication Upswift makes is that the fact of the affair is in question; gossip is defined as "...typically involving details which are not confirmed as true"; sensationalist is defined as using "...exaggerated material".

Compare Upswift's portrayal with the actual news coverage. For example, the Independent (referenced above): "The fact that Ms Truss had had an affair with the Tory MP Mark Field was well known in Westminster." Or from the BBC (see my original post): Mr Cameron said Ms Truss's affair had "been publicly known". Now that's the Prime Minister there, talking to the press! I understand Mark Field's affair with Ms Truss was cited by his wife in their divorce proceedings. The Mail may not be a reliable source but that does not mean it is incapable of reporting actual facts!!

Upswift has written the paragraph in the article which he says is non-sensationalist and informative, and Patrick Brand remarks on its elegance. To my mind, the only elegance of the current Candidate section is the way it obscures one significant omission (any mention of the affair) by the inclusion of insignificant information. Compare the news coverage with Upswift's paragraph. How many of the news sources mention that Jeremy Bagge was a former High Sheriff of Nottingham and a 7th Baronet? (few, some don't mention him at all). How many mention the 'Turnip Taliban'? (many, it's catchy!). How many mention the affair? (all of them).

But of course, Upswift's argument implicitly accuses every single media outlet (the Guardian, the BBC, the Independent, the Times etc) of sensationalism in their coverage of this story. I have a lot of problems with the media myself but Upswift (and Patrick Brand) would seek to commit Wikipedia to a form of non-sensationalism so strong that it involves the removal of information every news agency considers central to understanding the incident. (Imagine explaining the incident to your friend: 'They forced a vote to remove her because there was something about her past they only just found out'... 'Oh yes?..AND WHAT WAS THAT?')

(Just for a bit more perspective on this - I just saw Conservativehome's recent profile of Truss which even flags her as potential future Conservative leader. Presumably not an unsympathetic piece - and it still manages to include information about the affair. Yet more sensationalist, tabloid-gossip-repeating junk... Are you not titillated?)

Besides erroneously casting doubt on the facts of the affair, Upswift has, as I understand it, two arguments for not including the information. Patrick Brand has made each of these arguments separately in his two posts. Those arguments appear to be: i) WP:NPF applying to Elizabeth Truss herself, on the basis that Truss only became a public figure when elected to Parliament. As I stated in my original post, it is disingenuous to argue that someone only becomes a public figure when the votes have been counted confirming their election to public office. My point was not addressed by Upswift. As if to undermine his own point Patrick Brand links to the LPI page where someone who has participated in an 'election campaign' is explicitly identified as high-profile! This is now the second instance in this discussion where it is not even a case of interpreting Wikipedia policy so much as reading it! (just for the sake of completeness, I note Ms Truss ran campaigns to be elected to parliament in 2001 and 2005, before being elected in 2009). (Btw even if this argument were true I'm not sure it would be valid).

ii) the second argument is about protecting the reputation of Ms Truss's husband. I would request that Upswift or Patrick Brand explain this argument as fully as possible so that it can be picked over, as I fear if I respond to it as I understand it now I will merely be caricaturing it. [I hope it is not improper of me to note that Upswift's desire to remove information about the affair appears to proceed this second argument. Upswift was removing information about the affair back in 2011 (using argument i above), as far as I can see he only first mentioned the family as a justification when removing the information in 2013. I say this because if someone is using reason to justify an already fixed position (as opposed to holding a position which follows from their reason) it is liable to become tiresome to debate with them using reason.] thanks, onetimecommenter Sorry, I should have said she was elected in 2010, of course. Onetimecommenter

Hello again, Onetimecommenter (and welcome back). Thank you for making your points; I think you might be surprised that we appear to agree on more than you realise. But you have raised a number of assertions, so it might be helpful if I try to address these in a series of numbered points.

1. You say that mentions of the affair had “been consistently removed by the user Upswift”. You say that as if consistency is a bad thing. You say that “references to the … affair have been independently inserted by many different users”. I presume that you mean users such as Daily Blue91, Yum Yum Hornblower, 213.105.28.79, Sillyputty87 and DimSum38? They are not independent, but are the same person under a variety of different aliases, who has been disrupting many articles for several years, and has been repeatedly blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive for details.

2. Irrespective of this, the wording of the edits by these users are not accurate anyway. For example the edits by Daily Blue91 are contradicted by what Sir Jeremy Bagge says in the quote from the Independent article that GRuban mentioned:” I have absolutely nothing against her as an individual. I voted for her and what she got up to four years ago doesn't concern me. What concerns me is Conservative Central Office, the headquarters, failed to actually advise us”. This makes clear that, in Sir Jeremy’s words, it was the failure to be informed that was the concern rather than the content of the tabloid allegations themselves.

3. This quote from Sir Jeremy also supports my statement that “the reason for the failed deselection attempt was also due to the perception of how the Con Party had handled the selection process”.

4. It wasn’t me that inserted the wordy description of “High Sheriff of Norfolk (not Nottingham! – no Robin Hood connection!) Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet”; that was added by the aforementioned Yum Yum Hornblower. I think this is slightly clunky, so probably agree with you on this! But it doesn’t do any harm.

5. More recent sockpuppets have made inserts that she “admitted” an affair. As I have argued elsewhere, I think the use of this word is somewhat loaded and does not convey neutrality.

6. I also amended an insertion about the affair by Trident13 which made an assertion that the affair led directly to Field’s divorce, when there were in fact reports that his marriage was already in difficulties at the time, as Field’s own Wikipedia page also indicated.

7. You yourself mention that the affair was with a member of the Shadow Cabinet. This is not true; Field was never a member of the Shadow Cabinet. I assume you got this from the Mail article that you mention, but this is another example of inaccurate reporting.

8. There is not much space to develop an argument within the box for each edit, so I wouldn’t read anything into some reasons being provided by me in a 2011 edit, but others not appearing until 2013. Indeed, as I mentioned, it was me who initiated the first discussion on this subject on the BLP Noticeboard in February 2013 where I outlined my concerns.

9. There were, as you noted, 2 responses to my initial post on the Noticeboard. I responded to both of those, and received no further arguments against what I had written. Indeed, one of the two responses suggested a section on childcare reforms. I wrote a balanced paragraph on this, two-thirds of which was about negative reaction to the proposals. Over a year on, nobody has challenged the objectivity of this piece.

10. I was keen to raise the issue on the BLP Noticeboard as it is much better for these issues to be discussed in a relatively civilised, rational manner, where differing views can be explored and challenged, rather than as a series of edit wars on the subject’s page itself. This is hardly censorship – I have initiated open discussion of the matter, and have contributed to this thread too.

11. So, you can see that the words that I deleted when mention of the affair was inserted was done with full justification, because they were either inaccurate, not neutral or contradicted by other sources. The same applies to the suggested words provided this week by GRuban, as I have explained in earlier comments. You then assert what you perceive to be my reaction to the wording that you yourself have proposed. Not so; each of your two proposals is neutral and (as far as I know) accurate, as it includes the assertion (as expressed by Sir Jeremy Bagge, as we have seen) that the concern related to the information being withheld. In fact, to demonstrate that the affair was not still ongoing, I would add (within commas) “reported to have taken place several years previously” before the words “had been withheld from the members”. This neutrality and accuracy and non-misleading phrasing is in contrast with previous attempts at wording, for the reasons that I have described above. I am not denying the fact of the affair – but I would argue that the original reporting by the Mail was for reasons of titillation. And as I pointed out, the subsequent reporting three years later by more reliable sources mentioned the affair only in relation to the accusation (against Conservative Central Office) that mention of it had been withheld at the selection meeting. My argument against explicitly mentioning the details of the withheld information involves the points made in 13 (which is at least arguable) and 14 (which is strong) below – but see my possible resolution at the end of point 14.

12. It should be noted that (before I made any edits) the original edit to this article that included the Candidate issue didn’t explicitly mention the affair either. Instead, it mentioned that “revelations about her private life were revived”.

13. Irrespective of the points above on the accuracy or otherwise of information that has been inserted by others, there is the issue of when matters in a public figure’s past become pertinent. Patrick Brand mentions WP:LPI in his second comment. I hadn’t seen this page; what I was thinking was the assertion by David Cameron (which is referenced on his Wikipedia page in relation to questions on whether he had taken drugs) that politicians have a right to a private life before they come into politics. Commentators have interpreted this as referring to before his parliamentary career, ie before becoming an MP. I realise that statements alone by David Cameron do not dictate Wikipedia policy, but I also note that Truss was not regarded as sufficiently high profile to have a Wikipedia page until after she was elected as an MP. So the point is at least arguable, but not necessarily conclusive.

14. The WP:NPF policy has been raised several times in this thread. For me, it remains strong. Patrick Brand, in his first comment, describes the issue well. The subject’s husband is low-profile in his own right, but by having his name linked to her on this page in relation to her affair could easily affect his reputation. This could involve stigma attached to him resulting from speculation of the details of the affair. He has not (as far as I can see) made any public statement on this, or sought to comment on this in any way. This is in contrast to the examples of Gary Hart and John Edwards where the affected spouse made statements about the allegations. These two examples indicate that there are circumstances where the inclusion of affairs can be justified on Wikipedia; although it undoubtedly caused distress for the wronged partners, their active participation in the story meant that it could be argued that WP:NPF did not apply. So GRuban’s blanket dismissal of this point in the case of affairs is not accurate. The circumstances of this situation are different as I (and Patrick Brand) have explained. These policies exist within Wikipedia for a reason, so cannot be ignored when they apply, as I and others have argued on this thread. But perhaps it can be resolved? It’s not ideal, but I suggest making an alteration by removing the name of her husband from the panel on the right hand side. If this removal was made, the strength of the WP:NPF argument would be reduced, therefore possibly enabling the insertion of your proposed words (as expanded by me in point 11 above) in the Candidate section. Would you find that acceptable? Upswift (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. We are agreed that some of the previous edits to Truss's page which included information about this matter were badly worded and/or inappropriate. However I had seen previous edits of Truss's page which seemed satisfactory to me and was most struck not so much by the refinements you had made so much as the fact that a key piece of information had been removed. I agree fully with several of your points; I have some reservations about others, but am pleased to find us in agreement on what for me was the substantive point. I would accept your resolution in point 14 as a way to move forward- removing her spouse's name, and including the additional wording about the affair we have each proposed. I would not wish to push the matter further, but in passing, I can imagine some Wikipedia editors might think the protection we offer to the spouse is too great. His name is mentioned in a small box away from where the affair is to be mentioned neutrally. To affect his reputation the reader would have to assume (or know) that he was indeed married to Truss at the time of the affair, and as you suggest the reader would also have to engage in further speculation in order to attach stigma to him. I am myself not confident what one can reasonably assume about a spouse in an affair; a reader might equally speculate that he had been noble and loving in standing by his wife and working at their marriage. I also think it would be impracticable for Wikipedia, as a general rule, to try and protect individuals from possible speculation prompted by articles (as opposed to just protecting them from explicitly stated or clearly implied facts in the article). But I do not wish for this quibble with your proposal to prevent what for me would still be an improvement of the article. Finally, I would suggest including your addition to the sentence - “reported to have taken place several years previously” - in brackets rather than quotation marks for the purposes of sentence structure. Are we satisfied with: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about her extramarital affair with Conservative MP Mark Field (reported to have taken place several years previously) had been withheld from the members." ? It's grammatically unwieldy, but would suffice. Thanks, Onetimecommenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetimecommenter (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So the logic is - if a politician has an affair, and all the largest and most respectable newspapers in the UK write about it, but her husband doesn't give a statement, we shouldn't write about it? That can't be right. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the logic at all; there might be many reasons why it could be included. But, in so doing, we should be careful to ensure that other Wikipedia policies (such as the presumption in privacy of family members who are otherwise low-profile) are not contravened. Anyway, it appears that Onetimecommenter and I have reached a consensus on this. And I have no objection to the use of brackets rather than commas. In the absence of further comments, I would invite Onetimecommenter to make the agreed edits if he or she would like to; otherwise I'll do it myself in a few days if it hasn't been done by then and there are no further objections. Cheers. Upswift (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi

Please review the page for Farshad Fotouhi. His page has been actively subject to several attempts to reflect disputed information. Some people have been bringing their disagreements with his management to Wikipedia, and putting every negative online post they can find about him on his page. I really don't think these kind of disputes that are still active should find their ways into Wikipedia pages. I honestly don't have the time to constantly argue with an editor who seems to be on a vendetta against Fotouhi. I truly appreciate if a neutral editor looks into this.

Here are some information about the claims brought up on his page: [1] "Wayne State University is standing by Farshad Fotouhi, dean of the College of Engineering, whom faculty members have accused of lacking integrity and, last week, sparked the resignation of a longtime professor. "I really want to emphasize that Dean Fotouhi is doing a good job," Margaret Winters, provost, said Monday. "A great deal of what we see going on here is that some older, more established faculty frankly don't want to see change." Winters said Fotouhi had been hired several years ago to make key changes in the college, such as raising research productivity and boosting enrollment in engineering, and that he was meeting those goals -- to some professors' chagrin." "Winters said the university had thoroughly looked into claims against Fotouhi on two separate occasions and that the dean had come up clean." Dr wiki editor (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The it's just professors complaining argument doesn't hold any water. Donors are complaining, too. You can source that with Crain's Detroit Business. Undergrad students are complaining as well, but they don't want to go on record. Unless... you sought one out who's either recently graduated or transferred to another university. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some edits to neutral the content, I saw weak opinionated reports attacking him and removed them. Looking at User talk:Detroit Joseph's contributions, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Detroit_Joseph&offset=&limit=500&target=Detroit+Joseph - many blanked for policy violations appear conflicted and opinionated about Fotouhi - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, call me opinionated. Try reading Crain's Detroit Business and the Detroit News. Also try this: name 5 donors who stopped a contribution in protest of a former dean. No, just name 3. No, just one, give me just one. What about one professor who resigned in protest of a former dean? Can you name just one? Detroit Joseph (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop edit-warring contentious material into a BLP. The section is written tendentiously and does not present a balanced perspective of the controversy. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that User:Detroit Joseph has a glaringly-obvious conflict of interest in regards to Fotouhi's biography. On the article talk page, he disclosed what is essentially a personal vendetta against the man and has made a number of wide-ranging personal attacks on the article subject.

His edits are not in keeping with policy on biographical content and are clearly designed to promote his personal feelings and push his personal POV about Fotouhi. I believe that he should voluntarily refrain from any edits to this article, and I intend to request a topic ban if that request is not heeded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Read Crain's Detroit Business and the Detroit News articles. Let's see you conclude he's a saint from the facts you read there. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on Detroit Joseph editing this article. I have reviewed the edit history of the the article and the talk page, evidence of a vendetta against the subject of the article and continued posting of content in violation of WP:BLP (including edit summaries that were previously redacted), trolling of editor talk pages. There are no signs that the editor will voluntarily refrain from further edits. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ban discussions (or anything else that requires admin action) need to be taken to WP:ANI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks FreeRangeFrog. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

See ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Detroit Joseph. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been topic banned. Oh well. But the record must reflect that the "disputed information" is the information that has not been published in Crain's Detroit Business or the Detroit News. Those are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong), and those sources show that Fotouhi has hindered Greg Auner's breast cancer research, caused Paul Strauss to halt a $2 million donation to the college and caused James Woodyard to resign his tenured faculty position. You don't have to go to some random blog to find these facts. You have to go to two of Detroit's most respected publications. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified what a topic ban is for Detroit Joseph here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephen K. Amos

This page needs to be semi-protected and some recent edits erased, I think. Mezigue (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like oversight got to it first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Madhavi Vuppalapati

• Madhavi Vuppalapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring between an SPA and the subject (or someone associated with her) over some negative information. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns. I've asked User:Mcc1270 to comment here, and the other account to stop editing altogether. Reported via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:FreeRangeFrog

Sorry if the my editing have violated the guidelines, but I think the judgement given by Court would be perfect to be added https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1839892/Kyko_Global_Inc_et_al_v_Prithvi_Information_Solutions_Ltd_et_al

Because I can see many of the BLP pages with such citation e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobi_Alexander

Please let me know your thought on this. mak27 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Mcc1270 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said the material couldn't be added, I said it was being added in a completely inappropriate way, sourced to court documents and other things that violate WP:BLP. You come up with a viable paragraph of that stuff here, with citations, and we'll look at it. Also, please sign in if you're the user above. The references are gone from Kobi Alexander, by the way. Nonetheless, thanks for pointing that out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the page please have a look, I hope it does not violates the guidelines. mak27 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Mcc1270 (talk)

Dev Ross

We have a single-purpose account who regularly comes by and restores the article to an unacceptable state--removal of tags, reinstatement of a resume full of trivia, fluff words, etc. The single purpose is more than just this person; it extends also to the associated (and equally non-neutral) The Rocks (TV show). Your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it, boss. You swing the machete, I'll wield the scalpel, and voila - NPOV. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My personal view is that none of this is interesting enough to warrant an article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell

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.

---

• Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some assistance with the Jason Russell page. I saw someone had edited the word 'naked' to 'in a state of undress'. I considered that this might fall under Weasel Words in that a state of undress implies that he was not naked. So, I did my due diligence, and looked into it. I found dozens of newspapers, websites, etc. had covered the story and stated he was naked during a breakdown. Further, there are photos and videotape of the event. The evidence seemed overwhelming so I reverted the weasel words 'state of undress' back to 'naked' and cited my sources.

One user, Collect, claims that I am violating BLP even though the fact that he is naked is verifiable, NPOV, and not OR so does not violate BLP. He further states that I have not provided evidence despite giving pictures, videotape, dozens of news article, and an interview with Oprah where Jason Russell says he was naked. Now, these types of disputes are common. But I start looking through the history and found that this same user has been removing citations and manipulating the talk page for a period of 2 years since the event occurred.

If citing multiple primary sources, a dozen secondary sources, and an interview with Oprah doesn't rise to the level of verifiable then nothing will. The problem is that unless I keep watching the page Collect will revert the changes, delete the sources, and clear the talk page of any history that it ever occurred. Then when another user says 'wasn't he naked' he can say 'no reliable sources' because he deleted them all. This is what he has done for 2 years. Really need an admin to step in here... please see the Jason Russell talk page for more. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANEW for more. Collect (talk) 21:10, 30 March 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.

Bryant H. McGill

This article is clearly autobiographical and self-promotional. This is not a notable personality. His notoriety is self-invented. Specifically, addressing his article from top to bottom:

• The Goodwill Treaty is a self-promotion initiative that showcases McGill's ability to get actual notable personalities to pose in a picture for his website. It is a clear attempt to invent fame and notoriety. The initiative encourages people to sign a "treaty" which, itself, includes McGill's personal social networking information.
• The Wikipedia article name-drops notable signers of this "treaty", as if to suggest some connection between McGill and these celebrities. This is another obvious attempt to invent notoriety.
• The claim and source of congressional recognition and its significance are dubious.
• Mention of McGill English Dictionary of Rhyme is clearly promotional. The significance of this work is not established or supported.
• While it is true that McGill was mentioned in the cited WSJ article, the notability of this article is questionable, at best. Being mentioned a few times in a WSJ article for involvement in a website of almost no notoriety, does not suggest McGill's notoriety. He just happened to get his name in the paper once or twice.
• Similarly, having a photo selected (among dozens) in a minor competition does not constitute notoriety. Indeed, he was not even a winner, and there were dozens of those. Selection as a finalist is not noteworthy. Mentioning Ron Howard, in conjunction with this photo, is simple name dropping and another obvious attempt to suggest notoriety.
• Recent Books and Other Works sections are simply promotional.
• Some sources and most external links point to McGill's self-authored material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foswick (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayer

The new article Jonathan Mayer (created March 27 by a single editor, about a Stanford researcher working on privacy) is a good attempt, but it needs copyediting throughout (it was written by a non-native English speaker and there are a number of infelicities in the language). It also has a bit of unsourced material which may be wrong -- for example, Mayer is not a lawyer (contrary to the unsourced assertion in the very first sentence of the article!).

I know the subject of the article, so I won't try to address these things myself. --Schoen (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The same contributor has also created a new article on Arvind Narayanan (also a privacy researcher), who has expressed concern that that article needs copyediting too. --Schoen (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Basetsana Kumalo

Basetsana Kumalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The surname of this person is Khumalo, there has been a gross misspelling which must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.1.91 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

www.basetsanakumalo.com seems to be her official site and her twitter account appears to be basetsanakumalo. A quick look suggests that Kumalo is used by at least some of the media e.g. The Sunday Times (South Africa)[2]. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Per MOS:BIO, "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Her website, Linkedin profile and Twitter profile all spell her surname "Kumalo". Her first name was spelled incorrectly in the article title however, so I moved it. HelenOnline 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

• Brendan Eich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears the advocates are using sources in a inappropriate manner to make POV edits to this BLP. When every recent edit is made in such a way as to paint a person in a negative light, it gives cause for concern. I'm asking the regulars here to eyeball the crap out of this article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Barring unambiguous and verifiable evidence that the departures from the board are directly related to his stance on same-sex marriage, your removal is perfectly appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two different issues. The article says half the board resigned because of the decision to make Eich CEO, which is what the five linked WP:RS all say. There was already one linked WP:RS when pork inappropriately removed it, there are five now, even more could be added if necessary. The marriage topic is in a different section of the article. You seem to be drawing a connection that the article does not, and then demanding proof of that connection, when the wave of board resignations is notable in itself.TVC 15 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and unless I'm mistaken Eich has done many things not related to prop 8. While this may be notable, we should be cautious about making this donation be the focal point of the article. We aren't there yet, but recent edits, including the POV section title called "stance against gay marriage" is cause for concern, which is why this section was opened here. Perhaps this isn't related, but I note that you, PDX er1 and David Gerard (with Gerad being the fulcrum) all have interesting article overlap histories.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the policy at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." As you wrote, "We aren't there yet." So, your creation of this section was inappropriate. As for your references to "interesting overlap histories," I hope you will notify the other editors before casting any aspersions in their directions.TVC 15 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

When someone changes a section from "Political activities" to "Stance against gay marriage", and the sources don't say that, that is editorializing. Couple with that recent activity, and indeed recent events merits a section here. I've seen several sections created before any problems arose, (Hr. Joe Horny was caught with a live hooker, watch out)Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The title of that section says, "Proposition 8 donation." According to the edit history, you wrote that [3], prior to creating this section. Are you now saying, you wrote the section title so that you could create a BLPN section complaining about what you wrote?TVC 15 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that, changing it from a POV & source straying title to a neutral and source-respectful title. What of it? My original statement here still summarizes my position. Peope tryng to advocate a position may attempt to edit this article in a manner which violates BLP. Nothing more. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

I removed some content per BLP, and TVC 15 is restoring without consensus. I'm perfectly willing to work out the issue, but if I am incorrect and should leave what I consider to be a BLP violation in the article, please tell me otherwise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus on the Talk page to include the material that you deleted. Your deletions and reversions did risk an edit war, but instead of taking the bait I have notified the other editors who commented on the Talk page. As a result, there isn't an Edit War, and your section headline above is as unwarranted as this BLPN section. BLPN is for events that have actually occurred, not things you attempt to provoke or otherwise fear might conceivably occur.TVC 15 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have raised a BLP issue. Since I have, a new consensus must be formed that this is not a BLP issue before it can be restored. That's policy and is non-negotionable. I am perfectly willing to live by any consensus formed, and as I offered earlier I'm willing to discuss a way to introduce the material in a way that does not violate BLP. I could be a dick and say "go file an RfC", but why don't you take me up on my offer instead?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a pair of proposals regarding this biography (not having noted the edit war) on the article's Talk page, and participation there would be welcome. One of them relates to the board resignations issue. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

This article is a mass of allegations of corruption and bribery affecting a substantial number of living persons. Unfortunately, there appear to be editors who think this is how articles should be written <g>. The article, though flawed, was moderately stable until 26 March and has devolved into open edit war and total disregard for WP:BLP. Will someone lock it down and try getting it into compliance with policy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

I've done about as much chopping as I can today. The sourcing is really poor. Any improvements you crack editors can make are most welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Roy Harter and Skinnyman (studio)

• Roy Harter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skinnyman (studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both appear to be vanity articles, largely edited by COI accounts. I've trimmed some fat from the former, though a lot more can be done. If there's a consensus that the studio isn't noteworthy separately I'll AfD that, or it can be merged. JNW (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Eddy Hall

Eddy Hall

Not a massive deal, but as a journalist who's just written an article on British strongman Eddie Hall, I was a little surprised his name is spelled incorrectly on his wikipedia article. I corrected it myself but the change was reverted as "vandalism". As you can see from his personal website (http://eddiehallwsm.com/), Twitter account (https://twitter.com/eddiehallWSM), profile on his sponsor's website (http://www.maxiraw.com/team/eddie-hall) and his iPhone app (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/train-like-strongman-eddie/id646384920?mt=8) his name is most definitely spelled Eddie, not Eddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.18.38 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The ip is correct about the name spelling. However this will require an admin to fix this as Eddie Hall currently exists. This page will need disambiguation as well. I suggest the race car Eddie be the disambiguation, and this Eddie the primary. BLPN's very own FreeRangeFrog will hopefully weigh in and do some dirty work with his recently acquired, and well deserved admin tools.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

2 users, 'Vanamonde93' and 'Darkness Shines' have provided no important reason for reverting this edit[4], Darkness shines says that there was no consensus, while vanamonde93 says 'it was heatedly discussed'. Both of them never had access to the report. Here's recent discussion - Talk:Narendra_Modi#Jaffrelot_Christof.27s_report

Source has been misinterpreted, because;-

• It is not a critical report. But it is used for supporting contradictory sentence "However, his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state." (on lead)
• Report doesn't contain anything like "He cites the fact that Gujarat ranks 21st among the 28 Indian states in the Human Development Index", {on Narendra_Modi#Debate_on_Gujarat.27s_development_under_Modi} but report says that Gujarat ranks 10th out of 21 Indian states.
• On page 84, it says that "Gujarat ranks only tenth out of 21 states in terms of Human Development Index because some groups of rural Gujarat continue to lag behind", contradicting the sentence of subsection. Because writer has used the word, 'some', not 'all' or 'most'. So it is incorrect to call it criticism or interpreting as "He cites the fact that Gujarat ranks 21st among the 28 Indian states in the Human Development Index, which he attributes to the lack of development in rural Gujarat".

And there are number of more reasons. Only one side of the report is being pushed. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment : HI D4iNa4 please note that you cannot revert 3 times continiously without any concensus , would really request a third non related person to come and have a look , as i saw it was not the problem of mentioning human development index but was more like maintaining a balanced article .

Still i do not understand, when the actual statment states that "the development was more urban and not in rural" being interpreted as low human development!! as i myself am unable to digest that Please also note that the claim by Vanamonde93 that it was argued "here"(under Gujurat HDI ) is also little skeptical as only one source is been considered ! for branding a living person (is questionable until and unless he self proclaims as he did for hindutva, or being used in media frequently!), I think it should be removed until we get more sources claiming the same. or else it would be like Gandhi was a robber in the lead section referring to a single historian who saw him robbing once! please have a look here (in the last section. Shrikanthv (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell revisited

• Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes requested as one editor has threatened to restore language removed by admins as a BLP violation, and protected by several admins for BLP violations, (his comment was Further reverts from you will be reported to ANEW, there is no BLP exemption here -- the other reverts had been by User:Bbb23, User:John, User:Silver seren, User:Writegeist, User:Flyer22, User:Wikipelli, User:John Cline, User:Glaisher, User:KillerChihuahua, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Srich32977, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Piandcompany, User:Lugia2453, User:Omnipaedista, User:Acoma Magic, User:Belchfire, User:Jmajeremy, User:Evanh2008, User:Ponyo, etc. which rather implies I am not alone in viewing this as a BLP issue -- and has asserted that removal of the contentious edit would be "reported to ANEW" . I consider the use of "naked" where sources state the person was in his underwear, and the police report said underwear, that the contentious claim is basically sourced to the police report which said an "allegation" had been called in that Russell was naked and masturbating, did not make it as a claim of fact - but stated that he was in his underwear.

[5] is the latest re-insertion of the contentious claim.

Is The police said they were responding to callers saying that a man in his underwear was "interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk ... had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating."

A proper claim in a BLP where the police report itself did not make any such claim of fact about the living person?

I can understand a newspaper headline using "naked" (headlines, of course, are not part of any "reliable source") where a person was in his underwear according to the police, but suggest the use of "naked" as a fact in a BLP requires extremely strong sourcing, which is not found in the reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At some point this sort of bullshit willful misrepresentation really ought to get someone canned. (Yes, I know, I know...) The issue is under productive discussion on the talk page (well, productive by some editors, at least), where perfectly reliable sources have been produced. Collect would prefer not to engage with that particular reality, so he posts a diversion here. To see it, you'll have to wade through some of the usual crap… Examples of the sources already provided (though ignored by Collect) are given in these diffs; there are others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Try not to attack editors -- it makes others wonder about your own civility. And try saying to User:Bbb23, User:John, User:Silver seren, User:Writegeist, User:Flyer22, User:Wikipelli, User:John Cline, User:Glaisher, User:KillerChihuahua, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Srich32977, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Piandcompany, User:Lugia2453, User:Omnipaedista, User:Acoma Magic, User:Belchfire, User:Jmajeremy, User:Evanh2008, User:Ponyo that their position on WP:BLP is bullshit and see how far you get. Cheers -- and please do not stalk me like this any more -- it is getting quite tiresome indeed. Collect (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No no -- it's only you whom I'm accusing of practicing bullshit -- by giving a tendentious misrepresentation of the discussion underway. Here's a big clue: you haven't responded to the substance, you've merely produced the usual bluster. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a proper post on the proper noticeboard. I fear it is not I who is in the "bullshit" category. The question, as noted by the others posting below, was proper here, and their opinion appears to be a teensy bit contrary to your accusations. If you can cite anything here which is a "tendentious misrepresentation" kindly post at the proper noticeboard, and do not clutter this one up. Have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):My revert was during a Huggle session of recent changes patrol and I certainly would have reverted the recent edit had I encountered it in similar fashion. We are not here to speculate in Wikipedia's voice that a person may have "perhaps" been doing an embarrassing and contentious thing. It occurs to me to be a violation of both the spirit and letter of our wp:blp policy and; we should not entertain any debate which suggests it is not – nor tolerate one's refusal to hear, or inability to grasp the "bright-line" boundaries which have been thoroughly explained.—John Cline (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Never, ever get into a position of fighting to include tabloid-type material on an article on a living person on Wikipedia. It will not end well for you. We are quite rightly very conservative about including material like this. I am currently looking into this and do not rule out taking admin action. --John (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious in saything the guy was naked, when he himself has said he was naked. There are no BLP issue here, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My contention lies with the original synthesis which adds: "perhaps masturbating". I find it rather convenient that you've managed to manipulate the discussions focus on his being "naked", which has some basis of verifiability while ignoring the "speculation in Wikipedia's voice" which has none. Today your darkness does not shine at all; instead: dis-serving this discussion with obfuscation.—John Cline (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but it seems that others differ. --John (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But it would help greatly if sensible editors could acknowledge that he was in fact naked and said as much himself. What to do with it is for discussion and disagreement, but let's not disagree on the obvious facts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't examined all the sources or even all the latest discussion. I admit to getting impatient with discussions about a brouhaha that, utlimately, is a tiny blip in a man's personal life that has little to do with his notability. However, if I understand it properly, those who want to say he was naked are relying on a source (the Hollywood Reporter) in which he said he was naked in an interview. I'm not sure if there are other sources (and some British sources should be discounted as unreliable tabloids - I don't know where the Hollywood Reporter fits on the spectrum of reliable American sources). Others don't want to say "naked" because the majority of reliable sources don't use the word and say he was in his underwear. As for my opinion, I would probably favor not reporting it at all because it's unencyclopedic and doesn't seem to be part of a pattern affecting his career (see, e.g., by contrast, Lindsay Lohan). My second choice would be to say as little as possible. If I had to say something, at this point, I don't much care if it's naked, undress, or underwear (absolutely opposed to anything about masturbation). Having said all that, I'll defer to a consensus, if one can be achieved. Remember that if a consensus cannot be achieved, for a BLP, we should err on the side of conservative.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with Bbb23 here. There are many things which happen (or are reported as happening) that do not belong on an online encyclopedia. It sounds like this may be one of them. On the other hand, if in a week or a month this becomes a widely notable part of the subject's notability, it could then be worth including. At that point there will also be a firm consensus for exactly how to report it. Until then, we err on the side of not including it. --John (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

He said he was naked, himself, when interviewed on the Oprah show. And it is a notable part of his life, the footage of him naked went viral. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even assuming it went viral, DS, that doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. The kinds of things that go viral on the Internet include some of the most pathetic garbage. This may have gone viral, but if it did, it was because it was salacious and trashy. Why should we sink to that level?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the sky going to fall because we don't (or even wait) before we use the word "naked". Is it even relevant? Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We still don't need to report it, even if what you say is true. The second part of your statement concerns your opinion, which I have already noted. Repeating your opinion does not serve to give it greater weight. --John (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Except John, it is not my opinion, it is what the RS say. "he ripped his clothes off his back, ran out naked into the street near his San Diego home, slammed his hands repeatedly on to the pavement, battered himself against parked cars, and screamed obscenities until he was eventually led away by police. This, too, became a viral video."[6] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Guardian story links precisely to [7] as its source -- and the Guardian in the source it links to states: One of the co-founders of Invisible Children, the San Diego-based charity that is campaigning for the arrest of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, has been hospitalised after police said he was detained for running around the streets screaming in his underwear. then San Diego police dispatcher transcripts show neighbours began calling around 11.30am on Thursday to report that a man was running around in his underwear in the city's Pacific Beach neighbourhood. "[Subject] is at the corner, banging his hands on the ground, screaming, incoherent," the transcript continues. "People are trying to calm him down, he's been stopping traffic.". The actual Guardian source alluded to in the Guardian piece which you wish to cite does not support the claim you wish to assert it makes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The full quote is there for all to see. The Guardian is most certainly RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And you are in fact linking to a completely different article, your link is to an article from 17 March 2012, I linked to this one from 2013 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: The text o of the edit which I consider "contentious" is

On March 15, 2012, Russell was detained by San Diego police and taken to a local hospital after publicly acting "in a bizarre and irrational manner." The police said they were responding to callers saying that a man in his underwear was "interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk ... had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating." By the time officers arrived, Russell was wearing his underwear. Russell's wife explained that he was adversely affected by criticism of the film, "because of how personal the film is, many of the attacks against it were also very personal, and Jason took them very hard." According to a brief statement issued by Invisible Children, Russell was exhausted in the wake of the emotional toll of the media storm around Kony 2012. According to a family statement, the official diagnosis was "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration

The consensus text was

On March 15, 2012, responding to reports of a man in his underwear running and screaming in the street, San Diego police detained Russell and took him to hospital. A statement by his family said the preliminary diagnosis was "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress and dehydration

I suggest the status quo ante is proper per BLP and that the proposed edit is clearly violative of BLP. Collect (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree 110%. The fact that he had a psychotic event is still reported. IMO there is no benefit to the article whatsoever by including prurient details.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would favour either 1) omitting the incident altogether or 2) including brief, conservatively-worded and BLP-compliant coverage, e.g. what Collect refers to as the "consensus text". Writegeist (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this matter, but I will state right here and now that Collect is usually spot-on when it comes to WP:BLP issues; he is one of the wisest WP:BLP editors Wikipedia has and, even if I were to disagree with him on a WP:BLP matter, I would consider his words on the issue each and every time.

On a side note: I never thought I'd see my username and Acoma Magic's in the same sentence with regard to bettering Wikipedia. By that, I mean that Acoma Magic has an editing style that often conflicts with mine and his editing style is what got him indefinitely blocked; he is currently banned (not simply blocked), though he is surely out there WP:Sockpuppeting somewhere. And Belchfire is indefinitely blocked, but surely WP:Sockpuppeting somewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I will go one step further and say that even were we to set aside the BLP, there exists a strong editorial consensus that we should maintain the current version for reasons of sensitivity and brevity in content, and that the proposed longer version places undue weight on a single unfortunate incident which received a brief 15 seconds of Internet tabloid fame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Keshorn Walcott

• Keshorn Walcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was/is a real mess - I have had a go at tidying, as has @Sillyfolkboy:, however further edits by others with keener eyes would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah has been interviewed. This interview is on the TheAustismSite.com blog. The head line reads,"Daryl Hannah On Living With Autism." This link will get you to the video: www.greatergood.me/1fmm8gw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmpottle (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Phil Hellmuth Bio Contains Unverified, Illogical, and Potentially Libelous Statements

• Phil Hellmuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the wikipedia biography of professional poker player and well-known poker personality, Phil Hellmuth, the section about "Personality and Controversy" (just above "Bibliography") includes unverified information that may be libelous. I have never seen this information anywhere else, and I follow poker closely. Furthermore, while you cite three sources in regard to this information, one is a "dead link" and the other two do not verify this information at all (or even mention it). You follow up this unverified information with a completely speculative claim that also may be libelous, and, to top it off, is quite unlikely and demonstrates illogical thinking.

The information I am referring to is the statement that after Hellmuth was incorrectly awarded a 5K pot on Ultimate Bet (an online poker site), he wrote to his opponent, "You wanna play or what?" and "I play u limit right now," and later wrote that he had had pots awarded incorrectly "maybe 50 the wrong way to them and 50 the wrong way to me." This unverified information is followed up by the statement, "the previous cheating scandal at Ultimatebet led to suspicions about the plausibility of the company's explanation for the computer bug that they claim caused the error."

I am not contesting that this error did occur (in which Hellmuth was incorrectly awarded the pot for $5000). However, his alleged chat remarks, which sound like an unethical attempt to gloss over the mistake and keep it from being corrected, are not connected to any source in the article. Maybe he did write these remarks in the chat, but if he did, you shouldn't have any problem finding a link from a trusted source or even a screencap, as Hellmuth is the world's most famous poker player and widely followed, and was playing under his own name that night on a website he was the main spokesperson for. He was playing that game, as he plays all games (whether online or live) essentially in the public eye (with hundreds-to-thousands of people watching, even if it's just an online game), and anything he says or does within that context should be easy to verify and link to a respected source.

However, the even more serious problem is the article's statement about the "the previous cheating scandal at Ultimate Bet" somehow connecting to suspicion about this hand. The Ultimate Bet cheating scandal (aka the "superuser scandal") involved corruption in the development of the software that allowed some high-level Ultimate Bet executives to see other players "hole cards" giving them a substantial unfair advantage (which made them "superusers") and essentially stealing millions and millions in high stakes poker games, since opposing playing didn't know that their cards were "face up" when playing vs. the "superusers."

This was a huge scandal that rocked the poker world, but nobody has EVER seriously suggested Hellmuth was involved in it; even his biggest detractors don't accuse him of this, because it clearly wasn't the case. Hellmuth was a "pro" or "celebrity" spokesperson for the company Ultimate Bet, and not an executive, and there is just no sign anywhere he had anything to do with this (and people in the poker world have researched this scandal to the nth degree). Furthermore, there is a massive difference between (1) utilizing a secret software program that allows the player using it to gain an unfair edge, which he can then (theoretically) carefully exploit to win money without ever seeming suspicious and (2) having a poker hand featuring the world's most famous poker player, who is being watched by hundreds of fans minimum whenever he plays, result in the world's most famous poker player being awarded the money for winning the hand even when he clearly "lost the hand" by finishing it with an inferior holding.

In instance (1), the technique was meant to be used for millions of dollars at the highest stakes games as an illegal, highly unethical moneymaking scheme. It was also meant to be stealthy, and it really only failed because some of the people with access to the "superuser" software became so greedy that, during specific poker hands, they would make seemingly totally irrational poker decisions that were actually correct vs. their opponent's "hole cards" (which are hidden by the rules of poker, but were seen by the "superusers"). These correct but "bizarre" poker decisions eventually aroused suspicion that some of these players simply had to know their opponents "hole cards" to play so perfectly. From this point, people looked at records of poker hand histories (which are stored online and accessible) and worked backwards, finding patterns of plays that implied "superuser" knowledge, eventually leading to a full investigation and the truth coming out.

In instance (2), there was ZERO stealth. The world's most famous player, playing under his own name, being watched online by hundreds (if not thousands) of people, clearly lost a poker hand but was award the winner's money anyway. This was obviously a clear error, and would be among the stupidest scams to ever try to pull off. It makes no sense at all as anything but a glitch. You can't have world-famous Phil Hellmuth clearly have the worst hand in a poker game, with lots of people watching, and the hand details recorded in the online hand history files, and rig it so he wins $5000 (which is a pittance to both him and the site anyway). No logical person would ever think this was a scam... so casting baseless aspersions on Hellmuth's character based on trying to connect this software glitch with a totally different, unrelated (vastly bigger) scandal makes no sense and is likely libelous. I suggest you simply relate that this happened (i.e the hand played out, Hellmuth was shipped $$ even though he had the worst hand, the site gave its explanation, and refunded the $$ to the other player the next day). You could also briefly explain the superuser scandal, making it clear it is unconnected to this other incident, and that that Hellmuth has never been suspected of any direct connection to the superuser scandal; however, he has come under some fire in the poker community for continuing to support Ultimate Bet as a spokesperson and sponsored pro for the site for some time after the information started to surface that implicated high-level UB execs. (Eventually, Hellmuth resigned when the extent of upper-management corruption at UB became very clear, but some feel he should have resigned sooner and taken a stand against his unethical employers when the scandal first began to break.) However, even including that sort of info would have to be nuanced in approach, very carefully sourced and dated, and so on.

To conclude, many people dislike Hellmuth and his over-the-top, often "bratty" personality. Somebody who feels this way obviously wrote your wikipedia article on him, pushing a personal vendetta that resulted in an unfair and even likely libelous bio. This result is flat-out fucked up, and you should change it ASAP to make it a fair, level-headed bio instead of an illogical smear job. We all deserve a fair evaluation. If this was a bio about Stalin or Hitler, it would need to be fair, thoroughly sourced, and free of false claims and libelous statements and implications... and those are two of the worst people in the history of the world! This is just a poker player and "pop culture personality" who may have some attitude issues, but who also does lots of charity work and is known to be a dedicated family man and loyal friend. Why try to use wikipedia to wreck his reputation and print lies about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyguys? (talk • contribs)

The "Personlity and Controversies" section was rife with unsourced, misrepresented sources and trivial nonsense. I removed it all in the end. User:Reallyguys?, just in case you are not aware, it is perfectly fine (in fact it is encouraged) for you to edit the article yourself to make improvements. CIreland (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Martha Argerich

Personal Life

You state that MA has been married three times. This is incorrect. She has been married twice, first to Robert Chen and then to Charles Dutoit. MA was never married to Stephen Kovacevich. It is true that MA has a daughter with Mr Kovacevich. The daughter's name is Stephanie Argerich. The provenance of that name is that a coin was tossed by each parent to select the surname and Martha Argerich won the toss and gave the daughter her own surname. To level things out Martha Argerich suggested referencing the first name of Mr Kovacevich - Stephen - in their daughter's first name, hence Stephanie. There is footage on YouTube of Stephanie Argerich discussing and verifying her provenance as described above, in sections of the documentary film directed by Stephanie Argerich about Martha Argerich titled BLOODY DAUGHTER.

Thank you,

Hywel David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.45.62 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the article based on this source.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

An RfC has been initiated here to receive outside input on the question:

• Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?

Your participation there would be appreciated. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Kees Kaan

I'm concerned that, because of the poor sourcing and extravagant claims, this article violates WP:BLP. There's nothing defamatory, from what I can tell. Can somebody look at this? Bearian (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing seems notable outside of the work done by the firm. Redirected and merged. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

sanjay leela bhansali

We had deleted the signature from this page Sanjay Leela Bhansali People have been misusing it, so request you to kindly restrict anyone from adding the signature on this page

Thank you Pratiksha Pratiksha Khona (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This essay may be of assistance: Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. Among other things, that essay says: "If a person (or a representative of) requests that their signature be removed from an article, the signature should be removed, and the Wikipedia:OTRS team should be notified." Therefore, perhaps you should notify WP:OTRS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Crying Wind

Crying Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Based on your statement below please remove the entire posting on Crying Wind, this "Orange Mike" Person doesn't know her, I do. Many of the accusations made in the article are false and when Different members of the family have tried to take them down or correct them we have been blocked. Many of the cited people profited a great deal from Trashing Crying Wind who DID live on the reservation (we can prove this) and WAS very poor and her mother had an affair which was covered up (We can now also prove this). Neighborhood bullies who were always jealous of her tried to find ways to sabotage this woman who merely wanted to earn a living for her children through her creativity, by the way the story is simply about depression and raising kids- it is not a political academic work. She is not a legal expert and did not know Moody publishers was going to put out her book as an auto-bio rather than a novelized auto-bio, and she would not have known the difference anyway, but the matter has been settled in court nearly 35 years ago. Can we all stop trashing her now? In the theme of if you can't say something nice (or true) don't say anything at all, Please take it down- I put the initial posting up no knowing it would harm her so severely as others went on to edit it with their usual false claims. If you need proof of my statements please tell me where to send it. We did a DNA test via ancestry.com and I have census data and pay stubs from the reservation.

Thank you for your time-

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.199.173 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a pointer to this discussion, at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin

The article reports a critic's claim that Dr. Radin neglected to mention that the "Fox sisters" confessed to being frauds. This is a half-truth that blatantly misrepresents the full picture. As Pulitzer prize winning author Deborah Blum explains in her book Ghosthunters: Willliam James and the Search for the Afterlife, one sister, Maggie, "desperate for money...sold a confession to the New York World that they were faking," but she later recanted that and said her statement "was false in every detail." (pp. 150, 155). The entire Radin article is a blatant hatchet job, giving one-sided details about objections to Radin's work, while offering only cites for responses. But if this simple distortion cannot be corrected--I believe the line ought just to be deleted--then there seems little hope to address anything more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbricklin (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk-page for the Dean Radin article where this has been addressed. Your comment about a "Prize winning author Deborah Blum" is irrelevant as that reference does not mention Dean Radin. You are doing original research and you have also been edit-warring. Goblin Face (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles Keating

[8] from SFGate is being used as a source in a BLP for:

In 1964–65, Keating produced Perversion for Profit, a film featuring announcer George Putnam. It was a survey of then-available prurient and obscene materials, and asserted that pornography led to moral decay societal perils and stated that "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit."[31]

The problems IMO are first that the article is not RS by Wikipedia standards for statements of fact about a person as the article clearly is based on opinion:

A short film like "Perversion for Profit" is a case in point. Made in 1961 with the financial help of Charles Keating (the same man convicted in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s), this shrill and sometimes comical diatribe about the perils of obscene magazines works at several levels for today's viewer. At first, the cornball gravitas of a bespectacled newsman shouting alarmist narration creates a kind of ironic distance. The cynical viewer can easily titter at lines such as, "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit." But as the parade of girlie magazine covers, men's physique pictorials and campy S&M leaflets continues, the film betrays a kind of prurience the filmmakers could hardly have intended. What results is a remarkable visual record of midcentury underground literature and sexual appetites, and a gloss on the values of the society that condemned them.

And secondly that the quote added here has nothing specifically to do with Keating in the first place as he is not credited as the writer of the film. In fact, most "producers" are not he authors of the film, nor are they the "bespectacled newsman."

I suggested that

In 1964–65, Keating produced Perversion for Profit, a film featuring announcer George Putnam. It was a survey of then-available prurient and obscene materials, and asserted that pornography led to moral decay.[31]

Is fully sufficient and WP:BLP compliant, and that we ought not insert words by implication into Keating's mouth, which the version being sought specifically does. (Noting Keating dies very recently and is thus still covered by that policy) Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that Keating is covered by WP:BDP, this is not a BLP issue in any way, shape, or form. It's a content dispute about the optimal way to cover a notable aspect of Keating's life. Please take it back to the article talkpage and discuss it in that context. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- please read the article talk page before implying that I am not using it -- it makes for far more civil discourse. And BLP absolutely applies to "recently deceased" people in practice. I suggest that using an edit to imply that someone wrote something they did not write is properly before this noticeboard.

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.[

seems reasonably clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton-to-Hillary Clinton requested move blp question

A hotly disputed move request is coursing along at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is sought to be moved to Hillary Clinton, a version of her name used in plenty of reliable sources and by Clinton herself throughout her 2008 presidential campaign. But the contention has been raised on the page that moving the page to remove the "Rodham" would in fact violate BLP. Is such a proposition at all intelligible under BLP? That a person would somehow be violated in their personage by the use of a title which not only is widely used in indubitably reliable source publications, but used indiscriminately by the person themself? Perhaps a definitive determination as to this point would elucidate future disputations. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see no reason whatsoever why WP:BLP would even remotely suggest that using a name by which a person is commonly known as the title for a biography was improper. It is normal Wikipedia practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(nb-I'm participating there and voting for the move) I really think the idea that using Hilary Clinton would somehow violate BLP is absurd. BLP is intended to prevent harm to a person, not to ensure that what is written in 24 point bold font aligns perfectly with their preferred name. Now, there might be a case for BLP if the most common name for a subject was hateful or mocking, the subject does not use such a name themselves, and the subject had communicated their preferences clearly for a different name. An example of this would be Son of Sam who now goes by the name Son of hope to dissociate himself from the negative associations with that persona, but we still use Son of Sam in the running text - but people don't go rushing to the BLP defence of characters like that. I'm sure there are other murderers with rather gruesome monikers given by the media, even if such a name was commonly known using it as a title may go too far. However here we know Clinton ran for office using HC, she ended her campaign calls with HC, and the word 'HC' is not offensive or demeaning in any way, so therefore there is zero case to make that HC could possible cause the subject any imaginable harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)|

A month ago I would have said this can't be a serious question. But sadly I'm afraid someone is serious (or using a monkey wrench). Absolutely not a BLP issue. And saying this is "absurd" is an understatement. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sasha Roiz

Sasha Roiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please check the external link to the NBC profile? Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.208.119 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician) query

[9] removed

"I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect," Grimm said, "especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ny1.com/content/pages/202672/rep--grimm-threatens-ny1-reporter-following-state-of-the-union|title=Rep. Grimm Threatens NY1 Reporter Following State of the Union|publisher=[[NY1]]|date=January 28, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Campbell |first= Colin |title=Michael Grimm Threatens |publisher=Politicker |date=Jan 28, 2014 |url=http://politicker.com/2014/01/michael-grimm-threatens-reporter-during-interview/}}</ref>

With the edit summary:

rm per WP:BLP -- undue aspersions on named individual)

The query is - does the quote cast "undue aspersions" on Scotto? The editor is not questioning that the source is reliable for the quote, but whether the quote as given violates WP:BLP. This quote has been in the BLP since the end of January. Many thanks. (The editor who finds the aspersions "undue" has not previously made that assertion in his past edits [10].) Collect (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Grace Mang

• Grace Mang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I declined a WP:CSD#G10 speedy deletion of this article. Several IPs have tried to blank or amend it, and one added a PROD saying "subject of the article is a non-public figure and would like the page deleted", which I have also declined, because the article seems to me well-referenced and neutral and the subject sufficiently notable. I have offered to start an AfD if required and provided a pointer to WP:BLP/H. See also this request apparently from the subject. More eyes on the article would be useful. JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

I'd like to request a WP:BLP review at Warren Kinsella. The issue is that there's been a longstanding revert war over the inclusion or exclusion of various controversies that the subject has been involved in — which results in the constant flinging back and forth of accusations about potentially libellous BLP violations vs. "whitewashing", and an anonymous IP has now taken up the torch of restoring the unflattering information whenever anyone tries to remove or tone it down at all. This has been happening off and on for years — but it also warrants mention that the anonymous IP numbers involved on the "restore" side of the dispute resolve to the Parliament of Canada domain block, and that Kinsella himself has been directly involved on the "whitewashing" side (one of the editors in the page history is User:Wkinsella1960), meaning we have an issue of competing conflicts of interest engaging in a reversion war. Accordingly, I'd like to ask if someone who hasn't been involved in the dispute at all could review the article for BLP compliance. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football

• Match fixing in association football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bringing attention to this article, of which I have been the main contributor so far. Consequently I think it is OK, but given the subject matter felt it best to raise it here and ask for further input from a BLP perspective. GiantSnowman 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Kay Sievers

Minorly-famous Linux developer. Recently in a flamewar with Linus Torvalds, so IPs have been linking the flamewar as if it's an important life event. I put the article on autoconfirmed for a week; could do with watchlisting - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex Day

From around March 2014, numerous allegations have been made against Alex Day claiming that he has been sexually manipulative and abusive. A lot of the allegations and discussion have been happening on Tumblr, and there have been a few articles about the allegations (Daily Dot, Newmediarockstars, Nyulocal, BBC Newsbeat).

A number of users have tried adding sections concerning this, but they have mostly been reverted due to poor sources (are any of the above good sources?), and a number of people vandalised the page before it was semi-protected.

User:Finbob83 Has been making some edits, but I'm not sure whether they meet Wikipedia's standards or if they should be removed.

It would be helpful if some more experienced editors could watch the article to make sure the new edits meet the standards for WP:BLP

rdm_box 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdmbox (talk • contribs)

Suggestions of sexual abuse obviously need to be taken incredibly seriously, and, looking at those four sources, I'm not sure that they really amount to enough to justify such a claim about a living person anywhere on Wikipedia - they just don't really seem reliable enough to me. Personally, I'd prefer to see sources with more editorial oversight and a higher degree of fact-checking than a student newspaper and a website that exclusively deals with Internet culture.

Having looked over history of the article on Alex Day, I am also a little concerned that editors may be attempt to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs", which is obviously not what Wikipedia is for. For example, that this post accuses Wikipedia administrators of "silencing those with legitimate allegations against Alex Day" raises a massive red flag. Wikipedia is not the place for "allegations" unless they can be backed up by reliable, third-party sources (and, sometimes, not even then). If enough such sources can be provided, then it may be appropriate to include them in the article. V_oBEDD 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)