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.

Repeated vandalism on Biography of Living Person (Polaroid Kiss Music Band)

• Polaroid Kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: (AOM) & @InstantSnapFeedback: (ISF-who appears to be the party AOM is complaining about).

•It appears that you are both edit warring. The proper first venue for wp:content disputes like this are the article talkpage i.e. Talk:Polaroid Kiss.

• You are both apparently, new editors, and I wp:Assume good faith, but it seems rather odd that a new account (ArtemisOfMars) came to this notice board so early in their editing career. (sixth edit) And to wp:AIV on their seventh edit [1] Odd also that the account was created 3 July 2012 [2] but didn't edit until 11 January 2015. [3]

• Artemis, who is the "we" you keep referring to? What do you mean by "Our page ..."? (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) and WP:Ownership)

Nb. I have welcomed both editors and left a warning template about edit warring on their talkpages.--220 of ^Borg 07:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Borg Thanks for your reply and for your advice on my talkpage.

I created my account a long time ago but never really use it. I started to contribute a few days ago on Polaroid Kiss page. "We" and "Our page" refer to all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning. As we are a community, I thought it was normal to use the plural form.

@InstantSnapFeedback: did edit a very important part of the biography by deleting Steve Hewitt, one of the members of the band. This edit was done several times and with no intention to even check if this was the truth. I have contacted Steve Hewitt himself and he confirmed that he is a current member of the band and did contribute to their last album. Deleting him from this biography is wrong, that's why @InstantSnapFeedback:, who never contacted anyone, has to stop editing the Polaroid Kiss page. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information is encyclopaedic, and reliably sourced then 'ISF' should not be removing it. If the account is yours alone, I would write in the singular "I". "We" tends to be used by accounts that are set up by companies or similar to promote themselves. The fact that you were able to contact Hewitt suggests that you may have a close connection to the band, which is OK so long as you maintain a wp: Neutral point of view (NPOV) in your edits to that page, if you do have some connection to them.

Note that the three-revert rule does not apply if you are reverting wp:vandalism, but a content dispute is another thing again. Also remember that any editor is free to make constructive edits to the page, or challenge and remove un-sourced content. 220 of ^Borg 15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Borg "ISF" did some edit once again without checking anything. They claim that I am Brandun Reed, which is wrong. Is there a way to prove it and show them that I cannot be Brandun Reed? I know that my IP address can be used but how can I do that? The information about Steve Hewitt is official, Hewitt is a member of the band for years now. There's a new album, 'Youth', which is going to be released on 20 March 2015, and he contributed to it by playing the drums. I can contact him yes, but my point of view is neutral as what I put in the biography is the reality. My only goal is to protect he band from vandalism.

The edit war started again today. "ISF" edited once again "Hewitt" and "Dublin". Hewitt is of course a member of the band and Brandun Reed is a resident of Dublin. He is Irish, which should not be an issue, unless some people don't like Irish people. This story about a supposed "obsessesion with U2" is extremely harmful to the band and its reputation. What I believe is that this "ISF" person is a former member of the band who tries to compromise the band and Brandun Reed just before the release of their album. "ISF" has started to vandalize Steve Hewitt by removing some information. I undid what was edited because this is just a way to continue the edit war. That's why it is very important that this user "ISF" is blocked. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  AOM, please note I have added indenting to your comments per wp:indent by adding one or more 'colons' or : at the start of the line. --220 of ^Borg 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I am getting a bit fed up with this issue, plus the fact it past 3:30 AM, where I am! If you think they are 'vandalising' the page, try wp:AIV (though I think you did and the issue was rejected or WP:Requests for page protection (wp:RFPP) . --220 of ^Borg 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say it's very annoying to always keep an eye on the pages in order to prevent any vandalism and make changes all the time. I spend hours on this every day. I made a request on wp:AIV and yes this was rejected. I will try WP:Requests for page protection and hope they will accept my request. Thanks for your help! ArtemisOfMars (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AOM, I have feeling that it may be rejected again as this appears to be a content dispute. I have asked InstantSnapFeedback (talk · contribs) to come here to discuss rather than just reverting. I have also asked if anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians can help.[4] --220 of ^Borg 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help in resolving this issue. I requested a page protection and I hope I'll have a positive answer. It's not only a content dispute. Constantly removing the name of a musician on a band's page can be harmful for this musician. It's just as if what he did for the band was erased too and the band not acknowledging his contribution, which is rude.ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this little micro-drama for several days and I think both editors or all three depending on the truth of the sockpuppet allegations, should be restricted to the talk page of this article. ArtemisOfMars and Drameu, whose editing I can not tell apart on this issue, clearly seem to have a COI here. InstantSnapFeedback may or may not have a COI but they have made the article a BATTLEGROUND.

I scoured the web for any reference to Steve Hewitt being a member of the band Polaroid Kiss. The only article is the one the OP referrs to written in 2010 where he says he is colaborating on a project by that name. The original insertion of Polaroid Kiss, as far as I can tell was in 2011 in his discography where he is credited as a Collaborator. I have been unable to find any credits for other alblums by this band. If it were a major part of his life I would expect to see something more than a comment in the middle of an interview from over four years ago.

I would hope that InstantSnapFeedback will come here to comment. I would also think that it would be a good idea to see what is going on at Steve Hewitt. If there is nothing here to show him as a member of the band then it is certainly UNDUE to mention it in the lead of his biography. (I tried to use Wikiblame to see who first put Polaroid Kiss in the lead but could not get anything usable). RSN might be a good place to get opinions on whether the cited source is good enough for the claim he is a member of the band. JBH (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

JBH What I don't understand is why InstantSnapFeedback is only editing the name of Steve Hewitt (For your information, his name appears on the band official SoundCloud ), what about Perry Bamonte or Kevin Drake who were members of famous bands too? After all there are no interviews given by them for a few years (this one is from 2011 and about Kent (band) and Perry and Steve are referred as members of The Cure and Placebo ), which is not that surprising. Musicians are not that fond of journalists and as they were working on several projects they were not available for promoting a band who was recording a new album. Promotion only starts a few weeks before the release of an album. That's marketing. On 4 January 2015, ISF stated that about Hanin Elias "Hanin Elias is not currently involved with Polaroid Kiss". Hanin is the lead vocalist on "It All Makes Sense", the eleventh song of the new album of the band. So ISF was very wrong, which should give you a short view on what he is trying to do: harm the band and get his revenge on the members of the band because he did not take part to the new album and lose money. This is just a COI and a quick look at what this user wrote on my Talk Page will give you some good information about his motivation and, from what I see, this person knows Brandun Reed personally. The battle has started on Facebook and continues on Wikipedia. It's nothing more than a defamation campaign. I would like to suggest you to check this person's Facebook page but I cannot give names here so if there's a way to communicate a link to you privately, I'll do it. About interviews, many artists do communicate on Facebook now, it's easier, faster and the information is shared very quickly. But from what JBH said, a Facebook link is not a reliable source. So how can I show you that Steve Hewitt is actually a band member and is the drummer of Polaroid Kiss? I know that they are going to promote their new album Youth shortly, so new interviews are going to be put online. I'm not involved in this band, so there's no COI on my side. And I'm not Drameu. I don't know this user. I think that our IP addresses may appear somewhere on our profiles, so this could be easy to check them and see that we are not the same person. I really hope this "battle" will stop quickly. It's very annoying. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• My apologies to both Borg and JBH for wasting your time here, and also 'outing', which I was unaware is forbidden.

However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback I'm not Polaroid Kiss related, I'm not a band member, nor the founder of the band. I'm not a musician. I sing under my shower and when driving my car, not on stage. How can you be so sure of what you say without even checking with the people concerned? That's incomprehensible to me. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

* :  Further to my previous comment, regarding ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.

Further to what has been claimed by ArtemisofMars; Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback And you keep saying there's no COI on your side? If I understand what you say, you're a former member of the band, aren't you? And you're trying to transpose on Wikipedia a battle that started on Facebook and other medias. Following your quote, I'm a lady... so how can I be the founder of Polaroid Kiss band? Do you believe I'm one of the female vocalists? What's the purpose of my action in that case? Why editing an information about Steve Hewitt? It is very interesting to read that now you say that Steve has been briefly involved in Polaroid Kiss. You claimed several times that he never was a member of the band nor has ever been involved in the band itself. So you changed your mind. For your information, Tom Shear is credited on the "Pay Your Dues Maxi Single" (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Dues-Ltd-Polaroid-Kiss/dp/B00OU7S6AA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421594554&sr=8-2&keywords=polaroid+kiss) and Hanin Elias sings on the eleventh song of the new album ("It All Makes Sense"), a very beautiful song and her voice is perfect. I think that giving the names of the other members of your group will be considered as another outing by Wikipedia. And about artists names or aliases or I don't know what, Paul Hewson is Bono, Allen Zimmerman is Bob Dylan and David Jones is David Bowie ... Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battlefield, so please stop editing Polaroid Kiss article and let it live its own life quietly. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

InstantSnapFeedback,ArtemisOfMars first I would like to invite Drameu to join the discussion. Then I restate my opinion all of you need to stop editing any page related to Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and restrict yourselves to the respective talk pages. Whether any or all of you have a COI is pretty much irrelevent to me at this point. You all act like you have a COI. Quack! Duck!

As to including Steve Hewitt as a member of the band I do not think that High Rotation is sufficient for a contested claim, it is a blog. The other sources on the page are links to personal blogs/websites, a link to a Facebook page, a link to a record label that only supports the fact that the alblums were released and a link to Side-Line Music that does not seem to say anything at all about the band.

Right now I strongly suggest that you all work together, on the article talk page, to get some good sources and write the article on what those sources say and nothing else. The articles notability claim seems to be WP:BAND point 6, two or more independently notable members. However there are no reliable sources to back it up so I am inclined to send it to AfD as it stands.

Finally, please stop bickering between yourselves here, it does you no credit and puts off others who might otherwise be willing to help here. If you must argue feel free to do so with me over the points I have raised, preferably over at the article talk page.

JBH (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• : One final point from me:

Quoting, for context, doesn't make you a lady anymore than a brief association makes you a member of a band. That is all.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback Say what you want, I don't care anymore, you know you're a liar, involved in a COI, and that I'm right. The release of the new album will solve all these issues and I will ask for public apologies from you. The End ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemusOfMars My apologies for not answering your question earlier. If you want to show Steve Hewitt is a member of Polaroid Kiss take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. The essence is that a source must be published by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases, self-published material (Facebook) and such are not acceptable. Sometimes blogs and such can be used for non-controversial statements a subject makes about themself. The reason I object to the blog interview is (1) it is a blog; (2) it is old and even if true at the time the claim may not be true now; (3) if Polaroid Kiss is a notable project in his life it would have been mentioned somewhere else in the last 4 years. The prime rule we have here for BLP's is:

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.

There is a lot of single purpose, likely COI editing going on with Polaroid Kiss they have been added to a lot of articles by a single user, Drameu See these edits(Snake River ConspiracyThirty Seconds to Mars,Tom Shear,Steve Hewitt, and Assemblage 23). This makes me suspicious that a PR campaign is going on to tie them to more well known acts. (It worked on me when I saw this thread, I like old goth so I listened to them and hope I hear them in a club sometime. But that is neither here not there.) I have Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and their talk pages on my watch list so if you have a new source please post it there. I am far from an expert but I try to be conscientious in applying the rules/guidelines as I understand them and to be corrected with a TROUT if wrong - that is how I learn. I also would like to direct you to Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you have questions if a source is reliable for a givin claim. JBH (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:

This is my point entirely - namely that a single article from an unverified source over four years old is being used as part of a PR campaign to associate Polaroid Kiss with more famous artists. I understand that the article has been locked now to prevent further edit-warring; however, I would have expected that until Steve Hewitt's membership, or otherwise, could be verified through a reliable source (or number of sources) that he would not be listed as a member of Polaroid Kiss in the article, as it is simply misleading.

• If you try fishing for any trouts on Mars, you could be waiting a long time...

InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@JBH Thanks for your help JBH. Polaroid Kiss is going to make some interviews in the next few days, it's promotion time for them now they are releasing a new album. In fact, they had no real interviews for quite a long time because they were working on this album which was a bit delayed. They released E.P.s in the meantime but didn't give interviews. Now that they have been signed by a label (Prussia Records), things have changed, which is good. So if I find an interview of them and if I put the link on this board, will you tell me if it's a reliable source? And if I can put it on the band's article? ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:ArtemisOfMars:ArtemisOfMars I will be happy to give you my opinion, however my opinion is only one of many and others may quite rightly have another. The keys for me, since the band membership has, rightly or wrongly, been disputed is that the source be an established publication with a reputation for fact checking and strong editorial control. I would very much like to hear from other editors about acceptable music/band related sources.

A good thing is the article a few editors who are passionate about it and are better able than most to find any good sources that may exist. Right now Polaroid Kiss is in dire need of sources to demonstrate its WP:NOTABILITY.

Since it looks like the edit war has calmed down and we seem to be on the same page about sourcing I would like to propose a consensus and move further discussion to the article talk page.

The consensus here as I understand it is that references to Steve Hewitt being a member of Polaroid Kiss should not be included until such a time as a source meeting WP:RS and WP:BLP is provided that makes such a claim. The appropriateness of a given source should be discussed at the article's talk page and theWP:RSN

If you and InstantSnapFeedback agree with this please say so and we can move to the talk pages. If not please feel free to make changes that you all can agree on. If anyone else has some input, feedback or whatever please chime in. JBH (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH

I am in agreement with your proposal.

That is what I have wanted all along - reliable sources.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH Thanks for your answer. I will send you all the links that I'll find for your approval before putting them on the band's article. About Steve Hewitt, the thing is that I don't want him to be hurt by this story. He contributed a lot to the new album, playing drums on almost every songs. He is an excellent musician and has a very good reputation. He may not liked that we cancel his name from Polaroid Kiss article. That's not polite and may been seen as disrespectful. May we just wait for a new interview to be put online? The first single of the new album is already in the German Charts (Deutsche Alternative Charts), so a new interview will come soon. I agree to move this discussion on the band's talk page. Thanks for your understanding ArtemisOfMars (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH ArtemisofMars' reply is completely disingenuous. It should be obvious from the tone of their language that they are a member of Polaroid Kiss. They don't want references to Steve Hewitt removed from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, not because it might 'hurt his feelings', but because allying Polaroid Kiss with Steve Hewitt (and by association Placebo) helps the afformentioned PR Campaign for a 'band' that has constantly been promising, for over three years now, an album that has failed to materialise.

Therefore, I suggest that your suggestion of removing all references to Steve Hewitt from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry until verifiable sources are provided is adhered to. Otherwise, you may be waiting as long for them as a bite when trout-fishing on Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH If you don't mind, let's move this discussion on Polaroid Kiss talk page. I'm not a member of the band, I don't know how to prove it on Wikipedia but you have my word that I'm not a member of the band and not affiliated to them. I like what they do and just want the truth to be known. This discussion is a living nightmare. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH ArtemisofMars summing themselves up perfectly, there - 'I don't have any evidence for my claims, you'll just have to take my word for it'. Sorry, but to be taken seriously you need independently verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict with ArtemisOfMars

@ArtemisOfMars, I really would like to get the issue you brought here settled here where there are more experienced eyes than I. We can and should discuss sources over on the talk page but your earlier post appears to me to be saying that you do not accept the proposed consensus statement and think there is still a potential BLP violation. Please state plainly if you agree or disagree with the proposed consensus so this does not start up again when page protection expires. OH, and while you may not agree, Wikipedia really does not care what Steve Hewitt may or may not like the only thing that matters is what can be shown in WP:RS in line with the strict rules of WP:BLP.

@User:ArtemisOfMars OK, since the COI thing keeps comming up I will tell you why I think you have a COI, if not as a member of the band then as someone in PR. First, this discussion has shown that you have a lot of inside knowledge about this band, the personal relationships of the people involved (same for InstantSnapFeedback), release dates etc. Since there is not much press on the band that says inside knowledge to me. Second, your opening statement of "We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members" and like statements when you opened this issue. Those "We's" do not seem to be "all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning" except in relation to the technical information that makes me think the whole Polaroid Kiss thing is the work of one person or people working together.

Polaroid Kiss's biggest contributor wasChristian Sands back in 2012. That account edited only on Polaroid Kiss, Steve Hewitt and Hanin Elias all related to the band. An idiosyncratic editing pattern of this account is that they marked all of their edits as minor. Just like Drameu tends to do (45/60 edits). Between those two we have another SPA Sosgeneral who also marks all edits as minor they are further linked to Drameu in that they stopped editing Polaroid Kiss on 2013-07-26T06:47:21 while Drameu's first edit is 2013-07-26T11:02:30 the very next edit to the page. This tells me that this is a very low traffic page managed by a single user.

Now we get to your account ArtemisOfMars. You show up after the conflict started between InstantSnapFeedback and Drameu. Drameu reverts [5] (not marked minor) then IsntantSnapFeedback [6] then you pick up the ball with your first edit [7] and soon take up the issue here and at AIV and protection not your common new user. You also support Drameu such as in this series of edits Drameu - InstantSnapFeedback - AtremisOfMars] over exactly the same text.

So in short your the behavioral evidence gives you at least an apparent COI while the technical evidence makes you seem to be a sock or meat puppet of Christian Sands-Sosgeneral-Drameu. On a higher traffic page I might think otherwise but Polaroid Kiss seems to attract only people who have a passion about the politics of the band. (InstantSnapFeedback seems to have edited under at least one other account Salivasnapshot unless two people edit from the same POV from mobile devices with similar usernames [8]) but the editing seems to be consecutive rather than concurrent so meh.)So you have a lot of weight overcoming WP:AGF JBH (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH I just found this: http://home.earthlink.net/~thechurch/side-projects/polaroid-kiss.html Is it enough to show that Steve Hewitt is a member of the band? It's a discography of The Church, Steve Kilbey's band. The official website for The Church is this one (http://thechurchband.net/) and when you click on "Discography", that's what you find under "Side Projects". It's official matter. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion no, it is an Earthlink account, seems to be a Self Published Source, I see no reference to Steve Hewitt. Basically, if a source is something that a PR company or a person unrelated to the subject of the BLP can edit or add information, without a specific reputation for fact checking, accuracy and professional editorial control, it is not acceptable as a source. The only Self Published Source that might be acceptable is if there were some page that were provably under the control of Steve Hewitt or his legal agent that made a direct statement of fact. Then the information could be quoted per WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, let's do sources at the talk page after an agreement on how the article should be at this time, based on the current sources or lack thereofJBH (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH I don't want the name of Steve Hewitt to be removed from the band's article. I know the band for about 3 years now and I follow them on their social medias. I'm aware of what's happening on their lives because I read their news and buy their E.P. (yes, some of them have already been released). InstantSnapFeedback is a former member of the band, that's is more than sure for me because he gave the names of all the members of a Facebook group who called themselves "Ex- Polaroid Kiss Members" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1540049712882097/?fref=ts). They were fired from the band and did not appreciate it. And did you read how he is talking to me on my "Talk Page", calling me "Brandun" and saying horrible things about the founder of the band? He knows Brandun Reed personally. I decided to take part of this "battle" because I cannot stand lies and what this guys are trying to do. I know that it's not that important to know if Steve Hewitt is a member of the band or not, so why having such a fight? Let his name appear on Polaroid Kiss's article and that's all. Why does ISF always says that he "knows" that Steve Hewitt is not a member of the band? How can he be that sure? I'm sure of what I say because it's written on every official websites of the band. If it's official for the band, how can it be wrong? When you read some news on some other bands official websites, do you believe what they say is wrong? No. So why doing this with Polaroid Kiss? It's a complete non sense for me. If it's officially stated on the band's official pages and websites, this is the truth. Nothing more. About The Church official website, they do use this discography to reflect the work of their members, so they acknowledge what is written on it. The name of Steve Hewitt appears in the "credits" of "Pay Your Dues" single CD by PK. I really hope this whole thing will stop because it's totally driving me mad. I've never seen this before. That's incredible. All this battle for one name of an article? That must be a bad joke. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH In response to your last post, I did edit under 'Sailvasnapshot', but forgot the password for that account. I can guarantee that ChristianSands, Sosgeneral, Drameu and ArtemisofMars are also one and the same, namely a single member of Polaroid Kiss, but you won't get the same honesty from them.

As, I have stated many times before, ArtemisofMars is a liar. If you wish to contact EarlDixon III, Ian Pickering and / or Tom Shear they will confirm this and contradict the assertion that they were 'fired' from the band. I am sure your forensic analysis of this micro drama has already made you incredibly suspicious of ArtemisofMars. InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, then to settle this conclusively, we need an independent source (not the band, not the band members, not Hewitt) saying Hewitt is part of the band. Having an independent source helps in these cases:

• When the person had a trivial contribution and is trying to associate themselves to a famous band
• When a famous person had a trivial contribution and the band is trying to associate itself with them
• When a person is trying to disassociate themselves with the band or vica versa

Skimming through the above text, I don't see independent sources being listed. Do they exist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN You won't get that from ArtemisofMars, who is a member of the band.

Can someone from Wikipedia's editing team remove references to Steve Hewitt until if and when independently verifiable sources are added to the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, please?InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

Lydia Cornell

Lydia Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Lydia_Cornell (--Ronz (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC))
• Talk:Lydia_Cornell#Birthdate (--Ronz (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

We could use some eyes on this article. 108.252.17.151, states "YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS: I HAVE A STALKER THAT THREATENED MY LIFE AND FOUND MY HOME BASED ON BIRTHDATE. YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO WORK. REMOVE BIRTHDATES OFF IMDB AND WIKIPEDIA"[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the date of birth is unsourced and a brief search for reliable sources turned up empty, and given the subject's complaint above, I've removed the DOB from the article.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a message on their talk page about this. The first thing is that they'd have to verify that they are who they say they are. From there I figure that we can decide if the DOB would be something that would do harm to her as far as stalking and such goes. As far as work goes... that's sort of something that we can't help. I know that there have been people who have complained that having their DOB visible keeps them from getting jobs, but I don't know if that's what she meant by that and/or if that would be a good reason to remove it. I've also let them know that we cannot remove the information from IMDb, as that's a different website. On a side note, can people really track you down using your DOB? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The information is sourced. See the talk page. If we need to clarify the sources, let's do so.

Her birth date has been discussed in detail on the article talk page.

She and her publicists have tried to obscure and confuse her birth year, repeatedly publishing erroneous dates.

Wikipedia is not censored. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the sources a bit clearer. To summarize, we have no sources contesting that she was born 23 July, we have multiple secondary sources stating that she was born Lydia Korniloff in El Paso Texas, her birth record is available and confirms 23 July 1953, we have multiple secondary sources confirming she was 9 in 1963 when she won the "Little Miss Cotton" contest. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Lydia_Cornell --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided here[11] is a primary source and doesn't even mention Lydia Cornell or her birthdate. Therefore, I've removed the unsourced WP:BLP violation. Please don't edit-war to include WP:BLP violations into an article. Can we please get more editors to take a look? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that primary sources are not acceptable for information about a living person, and have removed the unlinked reference to "El Paso County birth records." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that I pointed out that we have multiple secondary sources confirming her birth year. The primary source is just a convenience for tying everything together except for her name change. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If the stalker already found her address through her birthdate (however that works), what good would removing it now do? It wouldn't make the stalker suddenly forget her. It's unfortunate that she has or had one, but blaming the birthdate is a bit much. And it doesn't stand to reason that having a stalker makes someone more or less likely to ever have another. As long as we use decent sources, I think it's standard biographical stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but we don't have decent sources for it — we have someone who purports to have seen "her birth record," which is a patent violation of BLPPRIMARY. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't go deeper than this section, and it seemed "birth record is available" meant online. Even if not, combined with the secondaries and the apparent subject's confirmation that the date is correct, I think we can be sure enough to know we're not misusing the primary. Just using it, with caution. Seems kosher by that guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that someone is apparently requesting that their birthdate be removed is not justification for saying "well they confirmed it, so we can use it." That's wholly backwards. If it's not widely available in reliable secondary sources, there's no reason for us to use it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that it augments the secondaries about "who" and "where", to give a reader basic biography. Vitals are vital. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't think that someone wanting it gone is proof. Just when they think that the stalker got the right address from it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

I've once again tried to properly source her birth date. The primary source of the birth record ties together the undisputed day of birth and birth name with the disputed year of birth. I've added one of the secondary sources that verify she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the name change. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the day of birth. We have more sources verifying she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963, but one should suffice. I hope editors agree that this is proper use of a primary source that verifies information already available in secondary sources per BLPPRIMARY. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What you have just done is literally the definition of WP:SYNTH — connecting a wide range of different information from different sources to create a novel conclusion that is not found in any reliable secondary source. Original synthesis is absolutely prohibited on Wikipedia so no, that is not a proper use of a primary source, and I have removed it. You appear to not like the fact that you can't find a reliable source for a particular piece of information, but that doesn't then allow you to piece together that information as an original synthesis. Either her birthdate is directly stated in a reliable secondary source, or we should leave it out. We are not investigative journalists, we are encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I hope that you are aware this has all been discussed before, and that I took your exact position until many new sources were made available. You'll note that InedibleHulk addressed these concerns above as well.

As those discussions pointed out, the sources are appropriate and there is no SYN vio per WP:CALC.

So what are you actually disputing? Anything other than her birth year? Any of the sources beyond the birth record? Just the application of BLPPRIMARY and CALC then? --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary source of the birth record is categorically not acceptable for anything, as per BLPPRIMARY — digging through county public records is investigative journalism, not encyclopedia editing. The absence of any reliable secondary source which explicitly lists the biographical subject's date of birth is controlling here, particularly given the subject's apparent expressed wishes. Information about living people which is not published in reliable secondary sources does not belong in Wikipedia, and if you have to piece some particular piece of information together from your synthesis of what you think newspaper clippings and public records from 50 years ago mean, that piece of information does not belong in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY states, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." So the disagreement is about the applicability

Please address WP:CALC. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And you read right past the section which says subject to the restrictions of... no original research Quite. The primary-source material hasn't been discussed by any reliable secondary sources — or we wouldn't be having this discussion. WP:CALC is irrelevant because the primary source is not usable, as there is no secondary source for it to augment. I have to ask why you are so bound and determined to include a trivial piece of information that you can't reliably source against the apparent expressed wishes of the article subject. In matters relating to living people, intent absolutely matters, we err on the side of excluding disputed and poorly-sourced information, we edit with sensitivity toward article subjects and this incredibly minor bit of data about a relatively obscure actress seems like not at all the hill you should be choosing to die on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We've multiple sources that give her age. Those sources from multiple EL Paso news articles, following WP:CALC to simply subtract her age from the year, verify she was born in 1953. Are you disputing all these sources, or just the application of WP:CALC? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this really slow: You don't have a reliable source which says Lydia Cornell's name and date of birth. Otherwise, you'd have linked it here. What you have is an original synthesis of multiple sources and a public record which purportedly supports this original synthesis. Absent a reliable secondary source which directly states Lydia Cornell's date of birth, the use of a primary source to support such a claim is categorically prohibited, as there is nothing for it to augment. Your argument is built of circles atop circles which obscure the underlying fact that you don't actually have a reliable secondary source for the information you want to include. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're thinking of her birthdate as a separate thing from her birthplace and birthname, I think. The entire subject is her birth. Secondaries give the "who" and "where" aspects, and the primary augments that with a "when". These guidelines are to prevent editors from going down a path that could reach a false claim, without precaution. Here, we're starting at the fact (or very persuasive claim) and working backwards. The end justifies the means. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. Her birthdate is a separate piece of information from her birthplace and her birthname and no, the end does not justify the means. We don't use such logic when it comes to non-public personal information about a living person. If you have to dig in public records for something, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you split every event into such fine pieces, you get a situation where the only thing a primary source on any tidbit can add to is a secondary with the exact same tidbit. In that case, we'd never need the extra primary, and that part of the guideline would be meaningless. Augmentation is not duplication. Not by my reading, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable secondary source for the information that is being proposed for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The primary should augment what is there. No woman was ever turned down for breast augmentation because hers weren't big enough. Same overall woman, pre and post-op. Same birth here, with a little more for readers to look at. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What sources? The only source that you provided so far neither mentioned Lydia Cornell or her birthdate. Please keep in mind that WP:NEWBLPBAN applies to all biographical information. If you continue to edit-war to include WP:BLP violations, you risk getting sanctioned. Aren't you aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NorthBySouthBaranof is repeating what I've done at least twice now. At least we're coming from the same perspective. [12] [13]

You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953. We do have reliable and secondary sources verifying her birth name, her age, and the day of her birth. The only thing in dispute is the year of her birth. Hence my questions on the application of WP:CALC.

Are we on the same page now? --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you understand that we're not going to include her complete date of birth without a reliable secondary source to support that piece of information, then yes, we're on the same page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand it is your position. My concern is whether of not your position is based upon an understanding of our current policies or not, hence my repeated questions about the application of WP:CALC.

So, the only thing apparently in dispute is the year of her birth. Is subtracting her age from a publication date a valid application of WP:CALC or not? --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ummm...no. We're still at square one. You have not provided a single source which states her birthday, nor have you addressed the original complaint which started this thread. AQFK (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote, "We do have reliable and secondary sources verifying her birth name, her age, and the day of her birth." Are you saying that we don't have such sources? Have you looked at the talk page discussion? --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at them. None of the reliable secondary sources you cite provides her date of birth, and ultimately the only way you have a date of birth for "Lydia Korniloff" is a public record search in primary sources. As there is no reliable secondary source for the primary source to augment, the primary source is unusable. Absent the primary source, you don't have a date of birth for "Lydia Korniloff," so it doesn't matter how well you can connect the name change to Lydia Cornell. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are disputing the day of birth, of which all sources agree, including Cornell herself? --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We're going around in circles, so I'll just ask again, do you have a reliable secondary source which explicitly states Lydia Cornell's date of birth? If not, the information stays out of her biography. There are plenty of sites other than Wikipedia where a person can do investigative journalism and/or dig up dirt and/or "expose" some non-public bit of information about a person by piecing together 25 different sources and speculating about which one means which. Once that information is published in a reliable secondary source, it can be included in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I already answered that question, "You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953." But I think this new ref will resolve this: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/entertainment/2014/07/22/celebrity-birthdays-july/13005405/ --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know, a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Any sketchy raccoons in Cornell's trash are unanimously the Associated Press' problem. Now let's all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, January 16, 2015 (UTC

Given the trivial coverage provided by this source[14], not even a full sentence, and the fact that the unsourced Wikipedia coverage[15] (at least April 2, 2006) pre-dates the newly cited source (July 22, 2014) by eight(!) years, this may be a case of WP:CIRCULAR. The lack of collaborating sources is troubling. Given the lack of reliable sources and the subject's apparent request that this information be private, I am removing the potential WP:BLP violation.

I remind all editors that BLP should be interpreted liberally, and with respect to the subject's privacy. Edit-warring to include potential BLP violations is grounds for sanctions. Editors should seek consensus before restoring contentious BLP information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one agrees with you. The date has been verified by multiple, reliable primary and secondary sources.

If you want to dispute the sources, take them RSN. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting you were here when I said "unanimously". Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the new editor claiming to be the subject of the article is in fact who they say they are. A different IP editor added information earlier that seems credible. The new IP is likely a troll. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's from LA. She's from LA. Who else could it be? Seriously, though, you never know who's who online. But if we disqualify her claim of accuracy on that basis, we can't forget to disqualify the BLP concern. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

The math seems simple enough: the newspaper article from her hometown indicates she was 9 years old in 1963. This fits with a birth year of 1953/54. I agree that a birth year of 1953 makes sense given all the research Ronz has put into this. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:11, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

I am affiliated with the article-subject. Between Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy and Heather Bresch#Controversy, currently most of Wikipedia's content about her is regarding this controversy. Rather than using Summary Style on her page, the Controversy section is about half the length of the full, dedicated article. I have offered a draft on the Talk page and a discussion has been started with the original author, user:Nomoskedasticity. More eyes and participants are welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 17:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch should focus on her, so the section on the MBA controversy should be far shorter, summarizing the other article and focus on her part in it, such as including that she apparently lied about earning the degree. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we even need two articles? The "controversy" stuff could easily be condensed and merged into the main article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's notable on its own, there's very little of the controversy that is about her, the details about the controversy directly concerning her (that she stated she finished her MBA when she had not) is not currently mentioned as it should. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've modified my draft to align with user:Ronz's feedback for now with a summary of the controversy in the chronology (or should it be pulled out into its own section?). Giving it a fresh read, the content is mostly focused on university staff and how they reacted to inquiries about Bresch's degree status, as oppose to Bresch's actions. It would be ideal however if a disinterested editor took a quick stab at summarizing the controversy in whatever manner they find appropriate. Also, any feedback on the rest of the draft article that would build out the more routine aspects of the page is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When date of birth is uncertain

What is the correct course when a date of birth is reported differently by different sources? Should the different dates be included, with relevant references, or should the date be omitted completely? I had originally opted for the former at Violet Brown, but in view of the persistent intervention of proponents of the Gerontology Research Group I'm beginning to wonder if the latter is not the better solution. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone may promptly disagree with me, but my suggestion would be to just email the subject of the article and ask them. Blatant original research of course, but people do tend to reliably report their own birthdate more accurately than published sources. Alternatively, a primary source like official birth records may also be more trustworthy in this case. A date of birth does not require secondary sources to interpret the data. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is a common one, especially for people in the entertainment industry or born in countries where verification of birth records is difficult. Follow BLPPRIMARY, which states we do not use primary sources alone for such info. When secondary sources give contradictory dates, find consensus on which sources are reliable. If the reliable sources disagree, then leave the information out. Examples include Rebecca De Mornay (birth date included after reliable secondary sources were found), Veena Malik (birth date not included because no sources have yet been found that are deemed reliable), and Lydia_Cornell (currently under discussion above: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lydia_Cornell). --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that have differing dates, we can "sources have reported the birth date as X (rsA, rsB) and Y(rsC, rsD). or if it is a matter that some sources say Aug 1, 1970 and other say June 1, 1970, we just report the year. Or if the dates are within a year or two, "was born circa MIDWAYYEAR (note that the sources have X {source} and Y {source}) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The incredibly lame Doris Day DOB edit war lasted months! Choor monster (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The question is not answered (though I do like the idea of emailing a 114-year-old woman in rural Jamaica to ask her when her birthday is - if I had her email address I'd do it, but of course I don't). The crux of the problem is that if the date of birth is removed, there's essentially no article - she's only notable for being old. Anyway, more eyes would be welcome; there seems to be some sort of pressure-group promoting this Gerontology Research Group in Wikipedia, and I'm allergic to pressure groups. I'm going to ask about the reliability of that source at WP:RSN. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that contrary to CorporateM's advice, emailing the subject wouldn't solve the problem anyway - we need a published source for verification, not private correspondence which cannot be independently verified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

user:AndyTheGrump is correct of course. Somewhere deep in my email archives is a note from Jeremy Stoppelman's handler with what is probably his correct birthdate. Instead I knowingly published most likely false information about a BLP in order to stick with published sources. It's all rather silly of course. But back to the matter at hand. If the article-subject is primarily famous for being old, but there is not an abundance of high quality source material regarding their age, these two things seem contradictory to me. If they are indeed notable for something, than there is source material for it, and if there is not source material, they are in fact not notable. I see on List of the verified oldest people that she is ranked 40 and we would almost never create an article about a company with the 40th largest market share in an industry or a person that was famous for being 40th place in the olympics. It sounds like AfD might be appropriate. The pertinent information is probably already included on the List page. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Satin

Could someone revdel [16]? NE Ent 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that one went too far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RAAI LAXMI

Currently we are facing huge issue in leading India Actress Page "raai laxmi" ; Her Date of birth is 5th May 1989 we have submitted lot of proofs and links , but some admin is chaging the date of birth very offen to different DOB which degrades the actress reputation we need support on the same to fix the error and make the DOB protected from further editing

Page Link :- Raai Laxmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegacelebs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just glancing over before going to bed, it really looks like the date of birth and age entries should just be left blank until a better source is found. Clickbait websites such as "celebfacts," and random links to google searches, and so on are not reliable per our guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cornelius Sim

Cornelius Sim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to report that this article contains utterly unsubstantiated claims made by the writer about the person in question, and that these claims are not only subjectively accusatory but also libelious in nature. I am not well-aquainted with the mechanism of Wikipedia and how to edit postings, so I am reporting it here. Kindly remove this article upon receipt of this notice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.131.172 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed, here, un-encyclopaedic and poorly/un sourced content added by 202.160.34.4 (talk · contribs). . --220 of ^Borg 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Autumn Jackson (the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby's illegitimate daughter)

More eyes are needed on the Autumn Jackson BLP. Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this. The Autumn Jackson BLP is apparently new. It was created after the recent Bill Cosby scandal broke, and it seems to be missing a lot of relevant factual information. For example, the current version fails to mention that Autumn Jackson’s extortion conviction against Cosby was at one point overturned [17] .I think it may have been reinstated. Could someone more knowledgeable regarding all the facts of the case, or else someone with time and inclination to properly research the relevant facts of Autumn Jackson’s case, please take a look at this BLP. This BLP probably gets lots of hits right now because Autumn Jackson’s name keeps resurfacing in the news in light of all that is currently going on with Bill Cosby and it seems to need significant work.

Also of concern is it appears to have neutrality concerns. For example, it opens with a description of Jackson as an “American criminal” instead of more neutral "American woman convicted of extortion" Additionally, the current version is referenced by questionable sources such as website: “Rhymes with snitch, news from the bathroom wall” [18] which is being used to say Jackson was charged with welfare fraud in 2007, but the current article doesn’t tell readers if she was actually convicted of welfare fraud or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See [19] "In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her. The woman, Autumn ..." seems to indicate the conviction was, indeed, reinstated - and by the same court. [20] AP: "Prosecutors said Monday they are seeking the extradition of two women, one of whom was convicted a decade ago of trying to extort Bill Cosby, on unrelated charges of grand theft and perjury in a welfare fraud case. " indicating an arrest for welfare fraud. No later AP story on that case it appears. Most likely plea bargained in some way, I suppose. Collect (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, that's interesting but It seems there's still so many unanswered questions. Was she returned to prison? According to that source "Mr. Baum said Ms. Jackson would surrender to prison authorities, but he added that he would then seek her release on bail. He said he was considering seeking a review by the full Federal appeals court" Did they appeal again? It seems the current version of article does not adequately address a lot of the relevant details of this case and was hoping readers of this noticeboard could fill in the missing info. Also, if Jackson was not convicted of the 2007 welfare fraud accusation, it seems this potentially should be removed in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME which states, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely she went back to prison for the extortion. Multiple sources. And we have no record of fraud charges being dismissed -- odds are very high that a plea bargain ensued. As to calling her "relatively unknown" I fear that horse left the barn a few years ago (and she is notable enough for her own BLP). [21] shows one reason why she was likely convicted - she refused to take any DNA test. The court reinstated her sentence - no reason to doubt that it was reinstated. And by the time any court would or could hear another appeal, the 26 months would be long over. I did find multiple sources for her being charged with welfare fraud though, and held on $110,000 bail. A tad more significant than a simple minor arrest. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I've read through the sources currently used in BLP, and also the one you linked above, and none of them specify Jackson was returned to prison. This source currently used in BLP suggests public sympathy had shifted toward Jackson by 1999, at a point when she had not yet been returned to prison, so I'm curious to know what eventually happened with her case: AUTUMN JACKSON has two living, breathing, toddling reasons why she desperately does not want to return to prison. The woman who her entire life has believed that actor Bill Cosby is her natural father does not want her twin sons — born while Autumn was behind bars — to grow up without a parent, like she did. “It felt like a kick to the stomach,” Autumn told me yesterday about an appeals court’s ruling that she go back to jail....Now Autumn and her family are awaiting word on when she might have to finish the last seven months of her sentence....“This is devastating. My family has already gone through this, over and over and over. “If I go back in prison, my boys are not going to trust me going anywhere. Even now, when I go out of the room, they have fits....Autumn said of Cosby. “And my advice to anyone contemplating something like I did is: Stop and think what’s important in life before jeopardizing what you have.” [22]. This source from '99 ends with "Hasn’t she been punished enough?". I did find this source regarding the blood test refusal saying the test was indeed refused by her and by her mother because at that point they deemed the results would not help her appeals in any way [23].Regarding the welfare fraud accusation with conviction status unknown, I don't see how Jackson being notable enough for a BLP makes her ineligible for the above mentioned clause from WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly that is a policy applied to people notable enough for a BLP. In my estimation, Jackson seems comparably less notable, as far as BLP subjects go, considering the things she is notable for happened back in the 90's, and she only got a BLP a few weeks ago because the extremely notable individual here, Bill Cosby, is back in the news regarding all this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel she is "not notable" then AfD is the proper recourse. Propose it. At this point, she appears very notable indeed. And since she was the one who sought the notability, it is hard for me to say she was only accidentally notable. And having a $110,000 bail set on the fraud charge is substantially more than a traffic ticket. [24] just came out - including tarot readings from the author. It does state that Autumn was careless about writing bad checks, though. WRT being convicted of extortion - the conviction remains in any event. Much of the remaining 7 months (out of 26) was likely reduced - but it appears she did have to report to the jail to be processed after the conviction was upheld. Her own aunt paints a very disturbing picture, though. Collect (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never suggested Autumn Jackson is not notable enough for a BLP. I have said that the welfare fraud accusations against Autumn Jackson seem to be covered by WP:BLPCRIME, if we cannot find a source which says she was convicted of welfare fraud. This is the specific part of the WP:BLPCRIME policy I'm referring to: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.". I do think Autumn Jackson qualifies as "relatively unknown". As far as BLP subjects go, she seems to be minimally known considering she is notable for something that happened approx. 20 years ago, but she only got a BLP a few weeks ago, likely due to increased attention on her old case as a result of Bill Cosby being back in the news regarding sexual abuse allegations. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And unfortunately she is not "relatively unknown" and if you feel she is not notable, the proper course is to start an AfD discussion on the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony Sly

There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the offending text as unsourced, here. It has been removed previously for the same reason and re-added again by IP editors to this and related pages. Note that you were able to remove this yourself. Additionally, until I restored an earlier version there was no source at all re Tony Slys death! --220 of ^Borg 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it keeps getting re-added then a temporary semi-protection might not be a terrible idea. I don't see where it is warranted now since most of the action happened last year around September/November, but it's something to look out for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Randy Ayers

The image of 'Randy Ayers' in 2008 is NOT a picture of Randy Ayers!

Incorrect Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg/220px-Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.5.223 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree based on other photos of him available on the web. His hairline is completely different. You can remove the image from the article and correct the name on Wikimedia Commons, or nominate the file for deletion.- MrX 15:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Rolfe D. Mandel

I came across this Rolfe D. Mandel article in the new pages feed. A significant portion of the article is sourced from a reference described as: "Personal Contact"; as primary as a primary source can be. With one exception the citations using this reference appear to be for factual information and not analysis or contentious material. I am curious to know how such situations are handled. Vrac (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We require reliable published sources. Any content sourced to "personal contact" should be removed.- MrX 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this John Steinmetz notable?

An SPA, first using an IP, then a user account ‎PAgrad46 (talk · contribs), keeps adding "John Steinmetz" to the list of notable graduates of the High School of Performing Arts. I kept reverting, and have asked for justification on his talk page. He has now given a longer edit summary, which at least identified him enough so I could identify him as this fellow, but he has not given any evidence of WP:N (Steinmetz is not on imdb even).

I'm not sure where to post this, actually. Choor monster (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Choor monster: Anything added to lists like that should generally have their own article to show notability. Removing the name is a good call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Crowe Propaganda?

User:Steverci has created in his sandbox an article titled Crowe propaganda. It appears in a google search.[25] I'm thinking the title is a BLP violation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steverci/sandbox/Crowe propaganda --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Willott

Jenny Willott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP, User:86.3.108.93, is repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the page of this British politician. See their most recent edit here: [26] (The first addition, regarding her school fees, is sourced, though of questionable relevance. The second and third additions are entirely unsourced criticism.) I've warned them a couple of times on their talk page for re-adding this material with no response. What's the best course of action here? Should I request the page to be semi-protected, or the IP to be blocked? Robofish (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I Reverted unsourced allegations in the BLP, I warned 86.3.108.93 about edit warring and 3rr and added the page to my watchlisht.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviews on Environmental Health

Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [27] since his Dec 7th edit[28] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.

The most recent Dell edit[29] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Curtis Dickson

I was wondering if someone could please help me with the NLL table, I have tried over and over to edit it properly but I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly. Thank you! --WestJet (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fixed now.14GTR (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY

WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? GiantSnowman 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Besides if the details aren't in a secondary source do they need to be in an encyclopaedia? — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Think of the hundreds/thousands of notable people who dropped out of the public eye many years before their death, which consequently went unreported in secondary sources... GiantSnowman 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If a secondary reliable source does not think it is important enough to mention, neither ought we. Collect (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is if they have 'dropped out of the public eye', you may well end up reporting their death based on a public record concerning another person with the same name. Which, if the subject of the article is alive is definitely a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the general trend of discussion here of not including an article-subject's date of death unless reported by secondary sources. If the person is indeed notable, their death should be a de-facto part of the article where applicable and is not a weight issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is right. If someone passes GNG and has an article, the fact that they have died is always going to be noteworthy for inclusion in the article, even if we have to make do with primary sources. The alternative is that people who are not-so-famous when they shuffle it off are immortal for Wikipedia purposes, which would be a bit silly. Of course, we also need to ensure accuracy, but that doesn't rule out using primary sources per se. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps so - but there have been examples where "the wrong box" occurred and the person was actually not dead. Collect (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But common sense and WP:V ought to be enough to prevent that. Formerip (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend reading Talk:Frederick Meyer for an example of the real danger of mixing up two people with the same name. Also WP:FRANKIE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Meyer looks like it might good example of the dangers of taking secondary sources at face value, or even just an illustration that there are some cases where Wikipedia gets it wrong if the media gets it wrong first. There's nothing in the example that says we should ignore primary sources. Formerip (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The initial question was much more broad. We should be careful using primary sources for adding details about a persons death (e.g. suicide, details of an accident, etc.) This is especially true if this for someone recently deceased. Editors should also be very careful about conducting OR and linking a primary source to the subject of the article, and until it is established by reliable sources that a subject is dead, or that enough time has past that it is obvious they are dead (i.e. they would be unbelievable old if alive) then WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. If for example, a reliable source says that someone is dead, but does not note the date, then it may be acceptable to use a primary source to note when they died. As long as the primary source is clearly and plainly linked to the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[Robert Wiley]

The photo linked to Robert Wiley (Robert John Wiley is a former Australian rules footballer...) has the wrong person's photo listed, being Robert Wiley - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The first photo on the attached link is the correct photo. Can you please change it? I have confirmed this with Robert Wiley personally so he knows I'm requesting this on his behalf.

Dee Walsh

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=robert+wiley&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WMO9VOnkNorn8AWXzILgDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=robert+wiley+carlton&imgdii=_&imgrc=zYXSiNGBsWN-7M%253A%3BJI3p7p4Hj6LdxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%252Fgi%252FRobert%252BWiley%252BFg33H-nffoem.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.zimbio.com%252FRobert%252BWiley%252Fpictures%252Fpro%3B360%3B240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.9 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Wiley (the Australian rules footballer) has no photo and hasn't been edited in about seven months. We can't add a random photo from the internet because of our copyright policy. The copyright holder needs to release the properly cropped photo to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license, and it can then be added to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:

Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar, investigative reporter Robert Friedman, Eric Boehlert, and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".

References

This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE (my highlight): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. So, providing that the sources are reliable and the controversy significant, such material could be included in the lede, but you have to take into account also WP:UNDUE. A much shorter summary of the controversy may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. There is no WP:BLP violation in reporting the controversies surrounding Emerson's claims - they are basically all that makes him notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that is not very nice. The section is not neutral, poorly sourced, and last two sentences are synthesis and a violation of BLP. The proposed addition sets up a negative characterization of Emerson and then says despite he being a liar he is STILL used as a resource. This is synthed using Emerson's website to back up the statement. Two of the main sources for attacking Emerson are MPAC and "The Nation" which are clearly biased and simply not usable or reliable for anything factual. The book review is from 1991 from an obscure reviewer. Just because a couple of people are pissed at him does not entail that their opposition be given prominent position in the article. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't negate that there is significant controversy. WP:ENEMY may be a good way for you to address this. Just find a way to report the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It says 'inaccurate'. It does not call him a liar. And given that he has admitted that his latest example of 'anti-Islamic rhetoric' was inaccurate, I can't see any particular problem with us describing it as such. Maybe the wording needs work, but there is no reason whatsoever why the lede should not fully reflect the matter that brought him to international attention. Few outside the U.S. will have heard of him before his latest gaffe, and any article needs to explain why he gained such attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the proposed text is that it's not really on point. It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson. While this is undoubtedly true on some level, it's rather besides the point. The notable issue is that Emerson says things in his purported field of expertise which are not true. In fact, some of his commentary is so not-true that he's been called out by reliable sources (e.g. [30], [31], [32]) and even provoked the (conservative) Prime Minister of the UK to opine that Emerson is "clearly an idiot" ([33]). That's the notable aspect here, and the aspect that's had significant coverage in independent reliable sources—not the fact that a number of (mostly progressive) commentators have criticized him over the years. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Made an edit [34] summarizing the controversy in a few words. The rest can be expanded in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson." When the British Conservative PM said what he did and even Fox News says Emerson is wrong, it goes a bit beyond what progressives don't like. Those of us who don't watch Fox News would never have heard of the guy if it weren't for his wildly incorrect statements. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification on how I am interpreting MastCell's comments. The notable aspect isn't simply the Fox News Gaff, but rather that he has been criticized by multiple sources for his inaccuracies for a while, and the Fox News Gaff is simply another example of that. I don't think he is notable for simply one event, but rather that he has a history of controversy. If I'm incorrect MastCell, please correct me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Is

British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that there were no-go zones in the UK, describing Steven Emerson, who had made the same claim previously as "a complete idiot".

Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes -- it's a direct extension of Emerson's claim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • • And you assert that Jindal is directly associated with Emerson in some manner? I found no source making that much of a reach - the quote is about Emerson (see section above) and is not about Jindal unless one wishes to use Wikipedia to imply that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot" for which, again, I find no reliable source. Comments about third parties are generally not considered relevant in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - [35], [36] [37] [38], [39] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • • In what way? Or just "yes"? Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Cameron was responding to Emerson, not Jindal - and I very much doubt that Jindal's comments would have been noticed at all without the earlier nonsense. The article previously gave the entirely false impression that Cameron had somehow made the comment for no reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)