Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:17, 26 August 2014

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.

Patrick B. Moran

I do not believe this article meets general notability guidelines. Patrick Moran is not notable except as pertaining to his role in a vote fraud scandal in his father's campaign, which is already covered in detail in the Jim Moran article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.151.4 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I PROD'd the article as per WP:BLP1E. Subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag was removed, so I nominated it for deletion under BLP1E.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Two kinds of pork. Users can weigh in at the article's entry on the AfD here. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

I noticed this on Wikipediocracy. Looks a bit like a hatchet-job to me. The councilman appears to have been trying to neutralise it and possibly erring on the side of puff. Does a disinterested editor with a good grasp of our BLP policy have time to help out there? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at it and, while it's not something I'd offer up for GA consideration, I think it's better. I invite anyone to check my work - JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. That's much more like an encyclopedia biography now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Sahai

The accusation of plagiarism made against the BLP subject Suman Sahai in the previous version of the Controversy section was later proven to be false. The University issued a letter dated 07.02.2014 confirming that no plagiarism proceedings had been initiated against her, after a case was instituted against the Dean for making false statements against the subject, which she won. Similarly, the information given regarding the venia legendi was false and has been removed. The article which made the accusation, cited as the main source of information in the previous version of the Controversy section, is patently defamatory (http://www.biotech-europe.de/editorials/726.lasso) and cites a press release by the University but the link provided does not exist as it was subsequently deleted for being false and providing incorrect information. (http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html? However, the post has been consistently re-edited in the past to include the same false accusations. Sleepingcow (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of filing a note on this article myself when I noticed that Sleepingcow already did this. I would like to solicit some input of editors experienced in BLP issues to have a look at this article and its sourcing to avoid a budding edit war. Personally, I think the sourcing is impeccable and the conclusion that the accusation of plagiarism was false is based on SYNTH and unreliable sources. Laborjournal, to the best of my knowledge, has never retracted their article, which seems to be based on solid investigative journalism (i.e., they investigated the appropriate primary sources -the habilitation thesis and the review article that was plagiarized- interviewed people that were colleagues o the subject at the time, searched for other material online, and finally published their conclusions). --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I can't read German, so I'm at the mercy of the machine translations. But the source referred to doesn't look like an article, but rather an opinion piece on the editorial page. I'm not sure we can assume the fact checking is as rigorous as it would be for an article. I tend to suspect the allegation is true because I don't see a denial, and academics are quite sensitive to this allegation, but I'm not confident we have BLP worthy sourcing for this assertion. Has anyone else anywhere noted the supposed plagiarism? If not, we probably should remove the allegation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laborjournal is a respected publication. It has an English version, Lab Times (but not all articles are identical between the two versions, this one only appeared in the German one because of the local interest, I guess). Retraction Watch has a column in the English version. After posting this yesterday, I sent an email to Labjournal asking whether their article had been retracted. They responded within an hour and told me that the subject's lawyer had contacted them lat year but in the end did not undertake any legal action, which is telling. I know that this is not useful as a source in our article, but the fact that Laborjournal stands to their story and hasn't retracted tells me that the allegations are basically proven. (After all, plagiarism is much easier to detect than other forms of scientific fraud, such as "inventing" data, because all one needs is to compare the two versions). As for the question whether this was an article or an editorial: the layout here is their web layout. A German friend of mine who gets the journal in hard copy sent me a PDF and it definitely looks like an article and most certainly is not an editorial. It's too bad really that this journal doesn't publish their PDFs online... BTW, for those not able to read German, a good translation in English is available and linked to in our article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Kline (politician)

John Kline (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a minor edit war (mentioned at ANI) over the wording in a "worst members of Congress" mention. I removed the entire mention, which was

Kline's 2014 campaign has received national attention since Kline was nominated as one of the US's worst members of Congress on the HBO showReal Time with Bill Maher.[1][2] Maher seeks to unseat a sitting U.S. Representative and takes nominations by Facebook, Instagram and/or Twitter.[3]

It seems to me that Wikipedia should not be used to amplify political attacks. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal. A segment on a satirical show. NQ talk 09:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satire and sarcasm != actual fact. And the use of Wikipedia for political purposes including campaigning for or against any person or group is, IMHO, evil. Collect (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, may I semi-protect this for a few days? Bearian (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely -- as well as any others where campaigners think Wikipedia is a substitute for advertising. Collect (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree to allow a mention of Real Time is they select Kline as their "winner" and the show spends substantial money in the district influencing the outcome race? At that point, is a historical component of the election. This is a huge event in the district which has never received national attention. It would be no different than discussing other substantial propaganda campaigns in history. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnuniq,User:NQ,User:Collect, it appears that this content has been restored by the same editor. I'm reluctant to engage myself, since I've already attempted to deal with this content once, and have been engaged with the same editor in a dispute over other content on the same article.CFredkin (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mention of worst member of congress is what is critical here. When a national show engages in a minor race, it has major impact. It is substantial news and atypical of campaigns. We can take suggestions on how to word this so the crux of the information is about the nomination rather than the opinionated designation but satire or not, the intention of the show (which has millions of viewers) is to influence the election. Kline's campaign has directly addressed the attack in papers which is notable. Kline's opposition is also engaged in a coordinated effort to utilize the media attention. We can't simply neglect the show's campaign because it is satire (although it is also a news forum) if it has potential to influence the race, which it does. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FlipADistrict web site doesn't say anything about "worst member of congress".CFredkin (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the episode's in question will reveal the wording that the show used to describe the candidates but I agree, this is mostly irrelevant and what is interesting that "flip a district" has the intention to change a district from Republican to Democratic based on social media nominations. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unusual for wiki bios (including politicians) to contain information about an individual's appearance or being featured on a news or satire show. What is important is to make sure that the information featured is FACTUAL. I support including the information about Maher's #FlipADistrict if we can find a way to make it as factual as possible. That means including the date of the episodes, a link to the relevant video, etc. Hlodynn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea if the material is added at Bill Maher. The satire/attack is something done by Maher, so it may be useful as an illustration of Maher's work. However, an attack is not placed on a target's biography just because someone made the attack. If anyone knows of another BLP which contains attacks on the subject please post a link so we can fix them. Given that anyone can edit (even SPAs), information at a BLP has to do more than be verified—it has to satisfy WP:DUE. If the "national attention" is notable, write an article on the topic. Otherwise, the text belongs on a blog. If something happens as a result of the attack (for example, if someone resigns), WP:DUE would probably be satisfied. At the moment, it's just standard electioneering. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage's "santorum" dysphemism still lurks in the Rick Santorum BLP Rick_santorum#Pornography - which is pretty much worse than this - but was staunchly defended by some people who may have had a campaign interest there as well. I suspect other examples exist. Collect (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Antonio Vargas

Content verified by multiple reliable sources, thus not following under WP:GRAPEVINE, was removed by another editor in this edit. The removing editor argued that the single neutrally worded sentence falls under WP:UNDUE. As for the claim that there is a consensus I responded here, as there has been no quality arguement as to why the content should be excluded. Furthermore the content is not about the 2012 arrest of the subject of the article, but about the 2011 revocation of the subject of that article's driver's license.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can this topic please receive additional eyes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer consensus needed on adding allegations that Song Zuying was an adulterer based only on reported rumors.

This needs a clearer consensus from other experienced editors, as it keeps getting re-inserted.

Can the following text be added to Song Zuying?

It has long been rumoured in China that Song was romantically involved with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, 40 years her senior, and owed much of her career to support from him. Song and Jiang were married to other people at the time of the alleged affair. Song later divorced her husband. Song and Jiang were introduced to each other by Vice-Admiral Wang Shouye, who is currently serving a life-sentence for corruption.

Is this material BLP-compliant? All sources admit it is popularly-held but unproven rumor regarding a BLP subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated rumours are clearly BLP violations.--ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the material in question.

I also am opposed to including this material. It's not a simple issue though. Some of the sources used are ridiculous -- the Daily Mail for chrissakes -- and some are not. One is the New Yorker, albeit a New Yorker blog, one is the LA Times. There is a book, "Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China". The South China Morning Post is invoked. The Association for Asian Research I am highly skeptical about though, and the Daily Mail is out of course.

These sources, and our article, do not state an opinion on whether or not Song Zuying had a long-term affair with Chinese leader Jiang Zemin, but rather assert that many people believed, falsely or not, that she did. If this explains in part her career trajectory that's germane. "enduring rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin" says the New Yorker blog, without exactly specifying what their relationship was.

It's a tough question. "Unsubstantiated rumours", IF they reach a notable enough level AND there are sufficient reliable sources to show that, might belong. For instance, there was an unsubstantiated rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Completely unsubstantiated, but I bet it's described here on the Wikipedia.

Still, all things considered, I would say the material should be redacted. It's hard to know what the situation is in China, because it is far away and uses a difficult language and has censorship. It might be that this is of an Obama-born-in-Kenya level of notability there. But I don't have hard evidence of that. So: it's contentious, it's contended by some editors, and the sources are not sufficient for inflammatory material. In cases like that our policy bends strongly toward not including the material. Let's not. Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this material was removed from Jiang Zemin long ago. If it wasn't considered sufficiently BLP compliant for his article, with greater editor participation, then I can't see how it would be compliant for hers.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people were arrested due to reporting these rumours, and that her name is a blocked term in China due to these rumours is a substantiated fact - is this not allowable content, relevent to her biography? FOARP (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. But look who was arrested: a retired army officer who is "known for revealing scandals about high-ranking Chinese officials over the Internet" and who is quoted as saying Jiang Zemin is "as fake as counterfeit money on the market". Sounds like a disgruntled blogger to me, and, this being China, it'd be odd if he wasn't arrested, saying stuff like that. Hell, they arrested Roger Shuler for this stuff here in the USA (well, Alabama anyway). The source for this is the Association for Asian Research, some kind of entity based at "Suite 407" on 8th Avenue and not a newspaper and I'm skeptical of their fact-checking operation. As to blocking search terms, OK, but China blocks search terms all the time (I think) so I don't know either way how much that tells us.

Also, based on the sources we have and can use, the most we can say is that they are rumored to be good friends, period. Anything about who was married to whom and so forth is out, barring much better sources. Possibly something like this: It has long been rumoured in China that Song's successful career was aided by her friendship with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. based on the New Yorker piece and so on. Maybe. I'm am opposed to even this though. None of these sources are AAA-level reliability and that's what we need for contentious material about a living person. In addition to which I don't know how notable -- widespread -- this rumor was. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An academic source ells us the blocking is related to the rumours. As for how wide-spread the rumour is, well, pretty much every source that discusses her other than government-controlled ones mentions it. FOARP (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Gupta (businessman)

His page reads like a CV and is not verifiable. It seems to be written by him, a quick check on the edits of the page reveals that he himself has written this. A quick search on google reveals that this guy is: 1) Deceiving people by taking money from investors in the form of fixed deposits and then not returning it 2) Cheating the Government of India by having illegal assets 3) Removed from the Gujarath Government for Corruption.

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/hc-slaps-rs-125cr-tax-bill-on-exias-officer/759258/ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-03-06/news/37500300_1_ifci-industrial-finance-corporation-metro-rail-project http://www.complaintsaboutbusiness.in/tag/neesa-leisure/

Maybe a better idea would be to create a wikipedia page that would display information about such corrupt people :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.153.249 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Of Michael Brown

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Posting articles containing information on an ongoing police investigation and riot is inappropriate. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. It is often misused for posting Current Events and Opinion. Please remove any "Michael Brown" articles until the case has been adjudicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bings (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellapragada Sudharshan Rao

I have created a new BLP page for Yellapragada Sudharshan Rao at [4]. Can you please take a look at my wording and the sources cited in there to see if my version is acceptable? User:AmritasyaPutra has raised various objections to my wording, which seem extreme to me, but I will be glad to have your input. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article talk page discussion: Talk:Yellapragada_Sudharashan_Rao. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a lot of work. I'll leave other users to hash out the use of "controversial" and "right winners" on the talk page. I made some minor cleanup edits and removed some rather irrelevant information. Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meatsgains, If I may request: please keep it on your watch-list also. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: Already added to my watch list. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, thanks for your cleanup effort; however, I noticed you removed Thapar's criticism without explanation. I've reinserted it for now, because it has been sourced, and it isn't making a claim such that BLP would require blanking. If you see any issues with it, please bring them up. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the criticism is because it does not in anyway improve the article and seems a bit out of place. Is it necessary to add that none of his popular articles "appeared in a peer-reviewed journal"? Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly asking, is canvassing applicable? link: diff. A simple yes or no is sufficient, please don't get outraged for nothing, that is not the intent. I could foresee these edits that is why I am asking. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: Vanamonde93 could have certainly phrased her post a little different to avoid accusations of canvassing. IMO, this is indeed canvassing as she explicitly stated, "I need your help". Meatsgains (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, that post was on my talk page, by Uday Reddy, I could hardly have phrased something differently. Also, I just lectured AmritasyaPutra about not making gender assumptions; use they/them, makes life so much easier. Finally, you might be able to apply accusations of canvassing if you were being literal; but I had already been involved at the closely related debate here. Reddy was merely making me aware of a related discussion, so "canvassing" is off the mark (though I concede they could have phrased it otherwise). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking... mmmm... Reddy could do that himself, no? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: My apologies on two accounts: 1.) For saying you participated in the "canvassing" when it was instead posted on your talk page and 2.) for making gender assumptions. :) Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, apology duly accepted, and thanks for being so gracious about it. Let's get back to the page now; personally, I do not believe BLP concerns are serious enough at this point to keep going here; shall we discuss this on the talk? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra:, Aren't you raising a strawman when the canvassing page that you have pointed to explicitly says that that kind of invitation is perfectly fine? You anticipated that I would do it, because I have previously extended similar invitations to yourself? I don't recall you raising any objections about it then! Uday Reddy (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue ended up here on BLP Noticeboard because User:AmritasyaPutra explicitly requested it, and that seemed to be the only avoid a protracted edit war. The basic problem we have is that User:AmritasyaPutra insists that we should use exactly the same words as in the sources. In this case, he made up the additional argument that otherwise it would be a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrgggghhh, assume some good faith? I made my comment as humbly and explicitly as it could be. I anticipated the reverts not the invite. This issue came here because of this discussion where you were told to go to BLP noticeboard by two other editors, which you were merely re-hasing on this new page. Your assertion is plain misleading. Also, I have never re-played your edits! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra:, "good faith" and "humility" are hard to see when they come in the midst of an edit war. Your modus operandi whenever you see something you don't like is to first change the words (and the meaning) to your taste, and then expect us to open a dialogue on the talk page. It is kind of like slapping someone in the face and then asking them to negotiate so that you don't slap them again. You have done this repeatedly both User:Vanamonde93 and me over the last couple of days. Calling this "humility" is the height of irony! Uday Reddy (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black.. See this thread again for yourself. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDP in BLP template

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) All right. There has been some disagreements over at Talk:Robin Williams regarding the changes to the BLP template. Robin Williams is dead and is no longer living. Tbhotch (talk · contribs) and SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) argue that [5] listing this category in this article in the category Category:Biography articles of living people is more inaccurate. while Aoidh (talk · contribs) argues that it doesn't and it violates the BLP per WP:BDP since it is still on the main page. However, I am uninvolved in this particular discussion.

Per this recent discussion, a user has suggested that Template:BLP needs to be revised to include the "bdp=" per WP:BDP. As such, I am opening a discussion regarding if we should update the include the "bdp=" parameter. Hopefully, this will resolve some issues. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason I'm reverting it is because changing it in that manner is placing a banner at the top of the talk page specifically saying "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article", and per WP:BDP, that isn't true. Last I checked that article is still getting hundreds of thousands of page views per day, so I think that, being on of the first things they'd see on the talk page, a banner saying something that's contrary to policy is worse than having a name in some category that most people will never see. I think the name being in the category is a problem, but between the two is a non-issue. I do think the template needs to be adjusted to fix this, but making the talk page banner be so inaccurate shouldn't be an option in lieu of fixing the template. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP still applies per WP:BDP; Te only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. So yes, it still applies, but why would the cats matter? Just remove the chat and put some cat equivalent for deceased, but BLP still applies for two years at most. Apologies, not what this is about. Tutelary (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, Aoidh. I think it might be necessary if we should start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an WP:RFC at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template. All comments welcome there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed in the section "#People trying to categorize Robin Williams as a living people" above. NQ talk 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. My mistake. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if another parameter could be added for articles that are not biographies but are subject to WP:BLP such as lists of people. Hack (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi Government

A group of editors (User:AmritasyaPutra, User:sarvajna and User:Dharmadhyaksha) have tendentiously objected to the phrase "NDA government headed by Narendra Modi" when referring to the decisions taken by this particular Government. Their objections varied from "it constitutes synthesis" or "original research" to "Modi may not have been involved" and "this article is not on Modi". You can see some of the discussion on this talk page. The Wikipedia has hundreds of occurrences of similar phrases for other Indian governments such as "UPA government led by Manmohan Singh", "NDA government led by Vajpayee" or "Vajpayee government" (which even has its own WP page). Such terminology is even more common in the UK and the USA. Qualifying the government by the Prime Minister is quite necessary in this case, in my opinion, in order to clarify to distinguish it from the other NDA government led by Vajpayee. The three dissenting editors are however adamant. User:Vanamonde93 and I would appreciate your views. Uday Reddy (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more of the context:
The sentence in question in complete form as Uday wants is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the Bharatiya Janata Party government headed by Narendra Modi."
The sentence in question in complete form as the "tendentious dissenting adamant" editors want is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR)."
The sentence in question in complete form as has been agreed and settled upon is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the National Democratic Alliance government."
@Uday: What exactly is your reason for having your preferred version? That it exists on other pages or its very unclear because there have been so many NDA governments in 2014? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents; there are several sources discussing the appointment, and 1 & 2 are currently used in the article. Source 2, as well as 3 (not currently in the article) both attribute responsibility for the appointment to the "Modi government." Therefore, I would ideally have the sentence read "was appointed by the Narendra Modi administration" and link to an article about said administration. But, that article does not exist. Therefore, Uday Reddy chose to link to Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Narendra Modi. The information is entirely factual, and we are making no insinuations about Modi himself, except that he is leading the government; therefore, I do not see any problem with including it. This fact is as notable, it would seem, as the appointment itself; if the latter is discussed, the former should be mentioned, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Reddy you might consider phrasing your sentences in a better way, what do you mean by "tendentiously objected"? You are opposed suggestion of other editors and I don't see them using the same kind of language. Coming back to the discussion, Our articles are not opinion piece or gossip columns to attribute every decision of the government to one person. In 2014 there has been only one NDA goverment, how can this be confusing? -sarvajna (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not attributing the decision to him; we are attributing it to his government. There is a difference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding this correctly, the National Democratic Alliance government and the Modi government are the same. This seems to be more of an editorial dispute on how to refer to the current administration than a BLP issue. Can't this discussion take place on the article's talk instead ? NQ talk 09:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The three dissenting editors have requested that it should be brought here. So, they need to explain what the BLP issue is. I suppose they believe that they have explained but you don't see it? (This is typical of the discussions with them.) Uday Reddy (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The appointment is done by "HRD ministry". Reference saying HRD Ministry makes the appointment of the head of ICHR. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source that says a decision was taken inside a particular ministry or by a particular minister, please feel free to cite it and change the attribution. In the absence of such information, it can only be attributed to the entire government. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: The appointment is done by "MHRD". Reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The reference you mention is for a different government and a different appointment. But, you are sidetracking. Where is the BLP issue? Uday Reddy (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who appoints ICHR chairman does not change based on UPA/NDA holding office. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that source says is that as of 2001, the appointment was done by the ministry; and even if it says that, the last I checked, the HRD ministry was a part of the government. The question still remains; what is the BLP issue here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is part of the government. 'It' is MHRD. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with the article in it's current form. The appointment is attributed to the current administration - the National Democratic Alliance - which made the appointment via its HRD department. The linked page of the National Democratic Alliance (India) clearly states that Mr Modi is in power and heads the current government. While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government' (since both seem to refer to the same administration), I don't understand the whole issue of substituting one with the other - unless I am clearly missing something. NQ talk 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current form is suboptimal because it is holding back key information about which NDA government is being talked about. The reader has to do additional investigation to clarify that. The only reason this suboptimal version exists at present is because the three dissenting editors claim that mentioning "Narendra Modi" as the Head of the government involves a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: It was me who proposed that this be brought to BLP noticeboard. None of the references presented here, there or anywhere state that the appointment was made by the person Narendra Modi. We have no references direct or indirect which would say that the person Modi or his post as PM makes this appointment. Nor is there any reference to state that the HRD Minister has anything got to do with the appointment. The stuff that happens inside the walls of those offices is hidden from us as of now. In such situation, why should a person's name be specified?
(And btw, this ref has Modi's name only in the title and nowhere in the article possibly because his name trends and we know how online news articles have to do such things to get their businesses going.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: - The source cited above by AmritasyaPutra states that traditionally the HRD ministry makes such an appointment.

@Reddyuday: - You refer to his appointment as "stupid" here, which may indicate a bias for your preferred version.

@Reddyuday and Vanamonde93: - Dharmadhyaksha mentioned above that the term 'NDA government' was agreed upon earlier. Can I suggest leaving it the way it is, since both obviously refers to the same administration? (also taking into account that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere in the sources that Mr Modi had anything to do with the appointment personally.) NQ talk 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem with "NDA government", especially when there is no ambiguity as to which NDA government was acting in 2014. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: I certainly admit "bias" against the appointment, but the discussion you have referred to clearly shows that this in no way implies a bias against Narendra Modi, who is the subject of the present discussion. In any case, I will let this issue lie for the moment. However, I would like to register my sentiment that, if we keep caving in to vested interests that want to cover up facts and information, Wikipedia will quickly lose its intended purpose. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ:, I can live with the current version; indeed, I was the one who suggested it as compromise, after the disputed terms were removed. However, it seems to me that mentioning the name of the Prime minister (because we cannot link to a specific administration) conveys slightly more information that just the alliance in power. Given that, and given that there is no doubt about whether the additional information is accurate, it seems to me that there needs to be a good reason to exclude it. It's notability is not in question, nor is its verifiability. The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one. Dharmadhyaksha keeps saying that the sources don't show Modi made the appointment; sure they don't, which is why nobody is saying that he did. We are merely saying his administration did, and "government of Narendra Modi" is more precise that "NDA government." Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha, Reddyuday, Vanamonde93, and AmritasyaPutra: - The fact remains that this isn't something that should be addressed at the BLP/N as there is no BLP issue here. Like I said in the beginning, I don't see any difference between 'NDA government' and 'Modi government' in referring to the current administration. I merely suggested to leave things as it is, (at least for now) since there seems to be some ambiguity regarding the appointing authority. This is a content dispute that should be discussed at DR/N or at the talk page itself via an Rfc. NQ talk 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger NQ. Thank you for your input! Uday Reddy (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: Sorry to bother you again. Uday has reinserted Modi's name giving this reference. Can you please check the reference and let us know if the article talks about facts or more about author's i.e. Vinod Mehta's speculations? I think its the later as the article over multiple times uses phrases like "predicting", "he [Modi] seemed", "things seem", "Whether he [Modi] will continue on that road is an open question", "From what I understand of Modi’s character and temperament—and I hope this doesn’t sound too Freudian — he is a stubborn man. The more you tell him to do something, the less likely he is to do it." (What was that? Author sounds like a grumpy aunt whose daughter Modi is refusing to marry!), "However, I am not sure", "I don’t know if Modi has embarked on a similar mission", "I hope he [Modi] resists the temptation". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fagash123/Richard Whitehead (Fashion designer)

Resolved

– Speedy deleted by RHaworth under CSD#G10 -- NQ talk 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about this. It came to my attention after an ISP (possibly the same person as Fagash123, who had added (and had removed) the same information previously) tried adding Richard Whitehead to both Richard Whitehead's disambiguation page and to List of fashion designers, and I found this page on user space while casually trying to verify if there was such a designer. Normally, I would leave this bio to be deleted automatically due to lack of sources and notability as soon as it was moved to mainspace, but there's some really quite personal information in there, and the URL cited goes to a page about gastric bypass surgery loaded with expicit photographs showing surplus skin - so I think despite initial autobiographical appearances, this page is actually intended as a personal attack on Richard Whitehead. The only source that mentions him indicates that he is a student, so certainly nowhere near notable enough yet for an article - but all the personal stuff and the rather disturbing content on the alleged personal website makes me think personal attack. I doubt that a legitimate fashion designer, aspiring or otherwise, would have a site like that. But I'm not sure so I would really appreciate a second opinion as I'm a bit bothered by this. Mabalu (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Int21h Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

The user User:Int21h has twice removed my inclusion of the template 'BLP sources' from the page Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This article makes reference, in the 'Opposition' section, to a lawsuit currently before the Canadian courts filed by two living persons, Ginny Hillis and Gwen Deegan. It further claims that these two women have obligations to the United States government. As these two women, in fact, dispute such a claim, a reference should be provided, or the assertion that they have obligations to the United States government should be deleted. After noting this here, I intend to reinsert the 'BLP sources' template on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and respectfully ask that User:Int21h not delete it again until it has been appropriately arbitrated.Dash77 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

This debate over 'BLP sources' appears to me to be a moot point; most readers would be hard-put to explain the relevance of any BLP sources to this article. However, a consensus solution obviating further debate might be simply to revise this phrase:

"would not relieve them of their responsibilities to the United States under FATCA"

to read instead

"would not relieve them of any responsibilities to the United States under FATCA."

Then I would advocate removing the template 'BLP sources'. Seniorexpat (talk) 21 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the names of the non-notable living persons. Collect (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this page mistakenly linked to Amit Shah, the actor, in The Hundred-Foot Journey

This page is currently linked to Amit Shah, the actor, in the The Hundred-Foot Journey. I do not think that they can be the same person. The link to the film needs to be removed and a new page for the actor Amit Shah created since they are two different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.246.44 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done Removed link that pointed to an Indian politician. NQ talk 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Buckley (actor)

The article has been getting repeated additions of unsourced children's names to the infobox (I've been removing these as per WP:BLPNAME but they just get re-added). It does appear that these may be sourceable, but even so is it appropriate to include them? January (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not appropriate per WP:BLPNAME, even if sourced/sourceable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Shoebridge

The subject of the biography has posted a detailed message at Talk:Charles Shoebridge citing violation of BLP policies. There are various concerns to be addressed. Need more eyes on the article. NQ talk 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced he is notable. AfD might be the way forward here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kalasho

The subjects use of citation is used improperly. The subjects use of citation is inapplicable to claims made. The subject article reads like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDwikieditor (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted for G11 by administrator Randykitty. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin McInnes

Looks like an edit-war, so maybe it just needs 1 or 2 people reporting and dealing with - I don't know (after a quick look) and right now, don't have time to analyze all the interaction. So I'm hoping somebody else can? Thanks, 88.104.20.79 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a compromise was reached. Special:Contributions/71.165.138.103 gave some blatant and direct personal attacks, but it seems quiet now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hill (actor)

It seems that Daniel himself has helpfully expanded his own bio today. I'm used to dealing with the pov pushers of the fringe theories and alt-med world, and my heavy handed approach might frighten him away. To me, the article as it now stands is a bit detail heavy and source light, and needs trimming and sourcing. Could a nice friendly person gently step in? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it appropriately for now, and it stands now unsourced and in need of substantial trimming. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the page a bit. I was inclined to remove a lot more of the material because there are not any sources to support the page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Glover

An anonymous editor recently added a section professing the article subject's alleged hatred of Islam and cited it with a blog. Normally I'd just let something like this slide but given the particularly sensitive nature of this topic I'd just like someone(s) to just take a look and be sure this is acceptable for this BLP. Please and thank you! Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as a clear BLP violation - blogs are almost never reliable sources, especially for BLP purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nenad bach

I live in one of the ex Yugoslav republics. Accidently, I know a lot about Nenad Bacich (Bach). So: what the hell is the "European chart"?!? Does anybody have heard about that? Bach's band had never been "european charts topping", it's ridiculous. "Vrijeme i zemlja" sold less than 1000 copise of their first album. (This was intersting music, but pretty artistic). Second album (not mentioned here), published by serbian PGP records, was sold in, aproximately, 256 copies. It wasn't a aetistic music anymore. In USA I don't know exactly, but consider: is it relistic that this man sold a MILION copies?!?!? This article is a uneatable, obscure self propaganda. Remove this from Wikipedia, please.

Article is now in AFD, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nenad Bach - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article survived AFD. The LP in this case is notable as a peace activist, not necessarily for being a musician. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alex galindo

This biography does not mention anything of this person. Talks about her step daughter and is poorly written. Please verify.

I have removed the non-English text in Alex Galindo. Thanks for pointing that out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy in the workplace

Article contains weasel worded statements that strongly imply multiple corporate executives suffer from a psychological disorder (many executives from firms listed as examples are still living). While a source is provided for the speculation, there is no evidence the source author had the access to these corporate executives needed to perform a proper clinical evaluation. The article's primary author is also linking this article in multiple WP:SEEALSO sections, spreading the insinuations to multiple locations. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK now. I have watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girl You Know Ir's True

Charles Henneberger sang the part , "Oooh Oooh OOh / I love you. girl you know it;s true". Charles Henneberger , was the original singer on this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.200.89 (talk • contribs)

The record cover [6] does list him as a guest singer. Other than the fact that he later released two albums under the name "Charles Christopher" [7], I couldn't find much information on him. So unless you can provide a reliable source that mentions him being the original singer of the song, we cannot include it. NQ talk 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Green

Ernie Green (former Cleveland Browns fullback) has NO middle name. Ernest E. "Ernie" Green . . . is inaccurate. I am his son, Ernie Green, Jr.

Done Probably added by mistake during routine cleanup - judging from the history. NQ talk 14:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick William Kennedy

Patrick Kennedy was Chairman of Nautical Petroleum PLC until its acquisition in 2012 by Cairn Energy PLC for £414 million. </rhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18422594ef>

Sorry, but could not locate an article on Patrick William Kennedy - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like he was suggesting that such an article be created; I've left a note on his talk page steering him toward Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh D'Souza

Disagreement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza#Convicted_status as to whether D'Souza's legal status can be stated as "convicted" on the wikipedia page; D'Souza's legal status is currently "convicted and awaiting sentencing" but most news outlets have focused on the fact that he pled guilty with a notation of the sentencing date, not the precise word "convicted." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As IP states, we do not have RS which say "D'Souza was convicted of ...." He has entered a guilty plea. The court must accept the plea, get a sentencing report, and then pronounce sentence. Once the news media reports on this we can say he's convicted. If IP will be patient, the information will develop and then added to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to re-hash things overly but, the court has already accepted the plea. He is, in legal terms, convicted and awaiting sentencing. The argument that he is not yet convicted rests on a misunderstanding of law. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not here to interpret what the sources say. You're here to repeat what they say. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partner at IBM??

First off PriceWaterhouseCoopers was not taken over by IBM. IBM acquired it's consulting arm. IBM is a publicly traded company that has shareholders not partners. This is so rife errors I don't know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.64.52 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

I'd suggest beginning at the relevant article talk page(s) - neither IBM nor PriceWaterhouseCoopers are 'living persons', and consequently this is out of scope for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Sankey

I deleted his Early Years section because it was not correct. The information was not correct about his mother, father, etc. His step mother, Heidi Talkington, keeps going into his Early Years section and adding information that is made up and untrue. Please keep his Early Years section deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftjab1234 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the unnecessary reference to his stepmother, but the rest of the content looks properly sourced and seems accurate. Infact you were the one who significantly expanded the section. NQ talk 00:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Dix

Poorly sourced. Largely relies of primary sources; most of the sources stem from publications from the organization that Dix himself created, which makes most of the content from the article pulled from a self published source.

Clive Martin

Source links don't work, no clear the relevance of this biography or accuracy.

Done fixed dead links, added multiple cites. NQ talk 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Oyedepo

Can someone here take a look at David Oyedepo? The article has been changed a bit in the latest edit and now has a Controversies section with two items sourced to the Daliy Mail. I'm not just reverting, because some of the removals done with the latest edit might be necessary. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Anderson

The recent shooting of Suge Knight brought me to search this suspect in the shooting of Tupac Shakur. I found his page launches into a full discussion of the Shakur murder. I'm wondering if A) that discussion belongs there at all and B) whether it's deletion makes Mr. Anderson even worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippa76 (talk • contribs)

Is there any chance to retrieve the "saved content" when one is editing/creating an article?

When one is writting, what it appears is the symbol of saving...? I had a problem during the creation of an article (José Antonio Najri). ★ Nacho ★ ★ 01:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Boyd III

Does

Between July 2009 and December 2010, Eddie Boyd III was hired as a police officer by the department. Boyd had previously been fired from the [[St. Louis Police Department (Missouri)|Saint Louis Police Department]] after being accused of assaulting two minors, one a 12 year old girl, with his service weapon.<ref>Matt Sledge, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/ferguson-eddie-boyd_n_5682454.html Ferguson Hired Officer With History Of Allegedly Hitting Children]", ''Huffington Post'', August 19, 2014.</ref> A state commission found Boyd had committed "a criminal act".<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/19/from-ferguson-cop-embroiled-in-a-brutality-suit-to-city-councilwoman.html</ref><ref>http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-ferguson-police-department-had-history-misconduct-allegations-1661674</ref>

Comport with WP:BLP in the Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) article?

I fear the HuffPo article is misused as it specifically states about Boyd's 2010 acquittal:

Vindicated by the jury, Boyd succeeded in stopping the state's effort to revoke his license in August 2010. He also sued the St. Louis police for the roughly $65,000 in legal costs he had racked up. The case was settled out of court.

which is somehow not mentioned at all in the edit questioned. And I suggest "assaulting a minor" is a contentious claim of a criminal act, and where no conviction of any sort occurred, that the use is a BLP violation.

thedailybeast article is used for the claim that a "state commission found Boyd had committed a criminal act." Last I checked, acquittal by a jury is a teeny bit more important than a state commission finding not supported by a jury. Saying a living person has committed a "criminal act" when they were acquitted by a jury is a "contentious claim" under WP:BLP

Lastly is the International Business Times: That source is about a 2013 suit unrelated entirely to the claims made. It refers to a 2013 lawsuit where a person alleged four officers used excessive force in stopping his car after a car chase. Unrelated to the claims for which it is wrongly presented as a reference. Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jeremiah birnbaum

Hi, my name is Mya Byrne, formerly the artist known as Jeremiah Birnbaum. Someone has updated my Wikipedia page to reflect my correct name and pronouns (I recently came out as transgender and changed my name), but I'd like it very much if someone could change the actual name of the article to reflect my identity.

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.205.180 (talk • contribs)

Done.--ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for this move was a WP:SPS(facebook), The (dubiously) reliable sources do not know of the person named "Mya Byrne", Unless sources can be provided, this article should be moved back. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:IDENTITY.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V, how do we verify that "207.38.205.180" is "Mya Byrne"? MOS:IDENTITY does not over ride WP:V, as a matter of fact it says: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, and Neutral point of view (and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article). " (Emphasis mine). Read your own links. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are readily available, such as the radio show found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again folks, thank you so much for making this change. I really appreciate it! :) -mya

Geoffrey Giuliano

I am Geoffrey Giul.iano This artical is biased, saying I owe taxes on a home I never owned. Has in correct information on my daughters name, my many movies, books and other life histories. I offered the URLS to confirm EVERYTHING but this was ignored. Here they are again. Pleasev treat my family, myself and my work fairly.

http://www.geoffreygiuliano.net

http://www.iconeditions.net

http://www.iconaudiobooks.com

http://www.giuliano.collection.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

These are ALL credible sources. I hope we can sort this out. Thank you in advance. Geoffrey Giuliano

Dunno -- but the BLP was a mess. I excised an entire section when it appeared the section expanded on what the source said, and I admit that Hare Krishna sources do not always impress me. Will someone take a cleaver to the verbiage please? The article is far to long and detailed on quite minor "stuff." Collect (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Ferguson unrest

2014 Ferguson unrest has a photograph of with a caption of "Ray Albers points with his carbine at protesters." I submit to you that this caption is a BLP violation. We don't have a RS making this claim, and the source of the photo is still from a youtube video, of which NEVER shows the person who is alleged to be Albers pointing a weapon at anyone. Yellow editing at its finest.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of good sources are available to verify that claim. Why not use one, instead of posting here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the obvious reason is we don't have any verification that the photo is what it claims to be.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for our eyes, you mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your eyes see protestors being pointed at, get your eyes checked.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no, I'm good, I've seen the video and read the news stories -- I'm in no doubt about what happened here, and neither should our readers be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“St. Ann Police Lt. Ray Albers raises his rifle at demonstrators on West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson shortly before midnight on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014.” Photo by Huy Mach, ****@post-dispatch.com [8] - Are you saying that the journalist that took that photo made this up? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, hes saying the photograph in question did not contain enough information to verify the caption. Which is 100% true. Stop with the snark please. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be OR. Using two seemingly photographs and using the caption of one photograph to describe the other. But then again, you haven't a fucking clue as to what OR is in the first place.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your you haven't a fucking clue above, please see WP:NPA. Check the sources. Even the police says that he pointed a gun to protesters. Here is the statement: [9], which clearly say "peaceful protestor [sic]" - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its very simple, so let me splain it to you: You have no idea who is on the receiving end of the barrel. You can speculate, but we don't speculate on, Wikipedia, especially for living subjects. Here's one for you WP:CIR. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay. Just that I don't enjoy engaging with verbally abusive editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's verified that he was performing this action [10] and there's very little reason to doubt the validity of the YT video that demonstrates this actual event upclose (and even moreso in a CC manner). I can't see this being a BLP issue since that's exactly the reason he was dismissed as verified by news reports. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is indeed not absolutely obvious from the photo alone, it is more obvious from the video. It was at least pointed at the photographer in any case. A simple wording change can deal with the issue, it has been written in several RS that he at some point pointed his gun at protesters, and was suspended for it. So saying "Ray Albers, who was suspended for pointing his carbine at protesters" does not have the issues of interpreting the photograph, and readers can make their own mind up of if the photo is an example of that action or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very constructive and sensible suggestion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources [11], [12], [13] and many more. Thank god for citizen journalism. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Gibson

Notable Achievements lists him as being named National League manager of the year in 2011. Detroit Tigers are in the American League.

According to Major League Baseball Manager of the Year Award, he won it for his work with the Arizona Diamondbacks. His article and the team's back this up. Just a coach for the Tigers, 2003-05. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

Kirk Gibson

Please ignore my entry- he was NL Manager of the year in 2011 with the Diamondbacks. He last played with the Detroit Tigers (American League)-SORRY...

No problem. I learned something. I'll probably forget it soon, but thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY DELETING IMDB.COMS FILMS BY GIULIANO

Geoffrey Giuliano is a wekk nown movie actor (SEE: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1)

A film he made 5 years ago says "soon to be released". When this is reasonably changed someone puts it back! Also when his current movies are listed from this site they are deleted. This can only be vandalism as this is well sourced and Giuliano has made several films previously unlisted. Attempts to update this long desterted page with the high profile film and literary work of this artist are being deleted out of biase, malice and other unkonwn motives. Even WORKING URLS are being removed. Would someone PLEASE intervene?

Geoffrey Giuliano Well Known Writer and Actor Someone Removing His Books and Films

Some is removing the well known international books and films of this artist when they are sourced properly by imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1) and the website: http://www.iconeditions.net

This is vandalism. Please intervene.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards