Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dalamori (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 11 June 2008 (→Micihiko Sugunuma: still typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    Constant BLP violations at Adam Shapiro

    In last few days I've removed a lot of unsourced libelous material and replaced with sourced accurate material. Despite this article having a longtime {blpdispute} tag, User:Wehwalt keeps removing accurate material and making other violations of BLP and now threatens to report me for reverting such material. Not sure how to proceed immediately, though obviously will continue to revert the most obvious issues. Specifically in last few hours since my last edit:

    [1] resolved
    • 1 Adding irrelevant (or POV?) stuff like who was left in the headquarters after Shapiro left.
    2 Taking out full Shapiro quote which provides context; doing so makes him look bad.
    3 Uses "alleges" three times in two sentences when one is enough.
    4 completely removed relevant WP:RS reference whose title calls Shapiro "hero". (Unless I insert other material from that article, will put in external links.)
    5 removed accurate description of why he left the building (demonstration) and replaced with WP:Original research interpretation of the fact two doctors came in, i.e. "Shapiro was allowed to leave when a doctor took his place," making it look like Shapiro was a hostage.
    6 and 2 more edits:Inserts WP:Original research fact (or allegation) from another article that is not mentioned in any articles about this individual, probably for POV purposes.

    Carol Moore 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

    If you look at Carol's last version [14] before the edits she complains of, you'll note as follows:
    Based on what is basically an opinion piece (written, incidently, if you read it, by someone who says Israelis fired on him and his wife!), Carol has stated:"However, during the 2002 Israeli invasion the ISM's work became chiefly humanitarian because the United Nations and the Red Cross would not operate ambulances without the cooperation of the Israelis, who were stopping and even firing upon them. Adam, who was living in Ramallah, volunteered with Irish activist Caoimhe Butterly to ride in ambulances. Hearing there were wounded in the headquarters of Yasser Arafat, President of the Palestinian National Authority, they made their way there. Trapped inside by Israeli firing,[1] they remained over night and Shapiro had breakfast with Arafat.[2] Huwaida organized a demonstration and Israelis allowed Shapiro to leave.[1]" This states as facts what actually comes from Shapiro's and his wife's statements, such as the firing on ambulances, the work becoming "chiefly humanitarian" and so forth. I've made it clear that it is Shapiro's POV (something I have worked to do throughout, which appears to draw Carol Moore's ire, as in her "allege" comments) and, while leaving in the "firing on ambulances", have supplied information from another article contemporaneous to the puff piece on Shapiro, which explains why the Israelis were stopping ambulances. Carol Moore apparently just wants it to look like the Israelis are crazy, stopping and firing on ambulances for no apparent reason. Before I noted the presence of this complaint, I was going to propose to her that we delete both the claim of firing on ambulances and the weapon found in ambulance cite. That they stop ambulances is not subject to dispute, and I am OK with leaving that in. I'd like a better cite though, really that piece from the Guardian should go as not a WP:RS as a commentary.
    Her complaint regarding the "hero" article is unfounded, that is a commentary and not a RS. It is also "reprinted" on a website which raises copyright concerns.
    Her complaint regarding the doctor: Well, that is what the article says! It isn't even clear whether Carol thinks that means he was an Israeli hostage or a Palestinian hostage! I'm not quite clear on how that qualifies as a "libel" or other BLP concern!
    Her complaint regarding the removal of the quote: The quote simply stated that Shapiro was responding to a Palestinian article advocating violence. I inserted another quote from the same source which I felt was more responsive and less apologetic. If she feels some of the information from the quote she liked needs to be in the article, suggest she propose a compromise.
    I did not threaten to report anyone. I simply asked that [15] she be more careful about 3RR.
    Perhaps most notably, this diff [16] removing, not seeking a cite or noting citation needed, but removing, Shapiro's Kristallnacht comments from the article, make it very clear that Carol Moore is interested, not in presenting all the info out there on Shapiro in a dispassionate npov manner, but in writing a pov puff piece herself, and to that end, is pulling out all the stops by calling in the BLP patrol. She should read this text from WP:NPOV, which is mentioned uppage right now: "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". The only offer for compromise which she has set forth, I readily agreed to.[17] I suggest that she be told to go back to the article and to work with other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You threatened to get ME in trouble for WP:3rr without bothering to ask for discussion, forcing me to come here. Yet WP:BLP clearly states: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. Plus again there is a {blpdispute} tag.
    • I don't have a problem with correcting errors, adding allege where appropriate (as opposed to 3 times in two sentences) or finding other articles that may be less based on the statements of participants. (That's all I found in my first searches.) And I did not challenge properly sourced info that you added in last 24 hours.
    • I have a problem with inserting clearly inaccurate or WP:OR material which I think several of your edits are and should be removed.
    • Hero article may or may not be WP:RS as source and I'll wait and see if need to use it before going to that noticeboard. But fine as external link.
    • The original Kristallnacht comment was not sourced at all and would be libelous if not true. I didn't know if it was true or not so deleted per {blpdispute} tag.
    • If people don't respond here, I'll ask an administrator. These are serious issues under: the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration Carol Moore 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
    I did not threaten to get you in trouble. I asked you to tone it down, as I cited, because I didn't want to get into an edit war. You weren't even going to the article talk page. You were just reverting, using undo on good faith edits. If you feel the number of times "allege" is used is excessive, well then rephrase. As for the Kristallnacht thing, you say you "didn't know if it was true or not". However, in the last version of yours [18] before I edited, it is discussed in Reference 3[19], just underneath (three very short paragraphs intervening) the quotation you pulled out to use in the article. You added that reference to the article. I guess now you'll say you didn't see it. You didn't read the rest of the article. If you did, you're POV pushing by excluding relevant material. If you didn't, you are just looking in sources for what you want and ignoring everything else. Gotcha.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last paragraph is too confusing to figure out, but I don't have a problem with his quote myself, only what I thought was lack of sourcing. The bottom line is I was following the tag which demanded removal of unsourced material and then when dubious stuff kept popping in and my first contact with you was a "warning" on my talk page, so I came here per WP:BLP policy. If you are willing to discuss on talk, I'm willing. Behind on several things after 30 hour power black out. Carol Moore 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
    I'd spend some time figuring it out, because it goes to what you may need to do so that editors assume good faith on your part. It looks like you deleted material, and then gave a reason for deleting it which wasn't the case, and I was able to prove that was so. That being said, if you feel you are a person who should be working on this article, I will engage with you on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I happen to think "Israeli actions regarding the Palestinians" are worse than "Kristallnacht, during which 36 Jews were killed in Nazi Germany and hundreds of Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues were destroyed." It's 60 years of state violence for purposes of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. So Shapiro merely being "reminded" didn't bother me, only that I didn't find a reference for it in the paragraph where the allegation appeared, here. And I failed to notice it in a later article where it happened to arise. Not a crime. Again in WP:BLP we are supposed to take out unsourced information (or information with broken links that might be fabricated) and that could lead to libel lawsuits vs. wikipedia. I will remove such material when I find it. Carol Moore 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

    Liz Wilde

    Liz Wilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd appreciate some opinions on this article. Lizwilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be the subject the article, continues to edit the article after numerous WP:COI notes on her talk page. Rtphokie (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Numerous is a word I'd love to ban, especially when the number can be counted without taking one's socks off. By my count, four, by the way! All in good fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify your comments? Do you not think this editor has been sufficiently warned, do you think WP:COI doesn't apply here or are you just sharing your thoughts on the word "numerous"?--Rtphokie (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on the word "numerous".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is poorly sourced at present. If it doesn't have reliable sources except for three newspaper articles from the 90s, and a short item in Business Wire from 2001. If we can't find more reliable sources, I think an AfD might be considered. The other possibility is to stubbify the article. (I didn't go into the for-pay sources, and I doubt that any books have been written about her). The subject can't go ahead and write an article out of personal knowledge, and then leave it at that. Deletion is a good way to avoid all BLP issues, in the case of an article subject whose notability may be questioned. I am not sure that WP:BIO can be met using the sources that are now in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the article be AFD'd while it is fully protected?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Wilde is active and in progress. — Athaenara ✉ 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Genie (feral child) part 2

    See previous listing of this issue [20]

    • Background. User:Wjhonson has a personal website webpage about a case of an abused child, Genie. Genie's case is well known in psychology and linguistic circles. On his website Wjhonson reveals Genie's real name based on research that he has done. He initially linked to this website as a source for his edits pn WP. Once this was removed several times he has not attempted to return it recently. A recent article has appeared about her brother that names him.

    User:Wjhonson been repeatedly edited this and other articles over the last few months to reveal the name (first name, last name or both) of the subject of this article. [21][22] [23][24] [25]¸[26] and there are more. In this he acts against the clear consensus on the talkpage. To date I count 13 editors who argue that that the name (first name or family name) should not be included, with one undecided, and two arguing for (1 only briefly). Comments from uninvolved editors included:

    • "as I have been speaking at some BLP discussions for a very narrow interpretation of "do no harm"....This is perhaps one of the cases to which the policy most obviously clearly and rightfully applies, and even if we did not have the formal policy it would still seem to me to be indefensible to use the real name" [27] DGG
    • "While I personally find a lot of claims of do-no-harm ridiculous when something is easily googlable, this isn't easily googlable. Whether or not the name has been concealed deliberately there is a definite possibility of doing damage if this name is put here." JoshuaZ [28]
    • User:Wjhonson has just recreated a redirect naming the woman[29], that was deleted due to BLP concerns in an RFD discussion in which the deleting adminstrator even redacted the name from the request for deletion discussion[30]
    • He has named the woman again on this edit creating a redirect from the brother's name [31]

    I think the time has come for some independent administator attention to this ongoing situation. --Slp1 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite easy to find, both in RS and in blogs/flicker albums and the like. I've yet to see anything that asserts that the listing of such prevalent information has any potential harm for the subject beyond what already exists from other sources (ABC news being the most easily findable and obvious). Celarnor Talk to me 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not clear what your links attempt to prove: blogs and websites are not reliable sources, and the journal [32] and the highschool topic suggestion [33] do not even mention her name. The ABC article [34] names her mother but not her and ends "In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory."
    As I pointed out before if you don't know her name, the name is very difficult to find. Try Genie and Language [35] or Genie and Abuse [36] and see what you have to wade through to find it.
    Try to improve your searching methods. Including quotes around "real name", or using the AND operator in academic databases that still use them, results in much more useful information. Once you have something, it's pretty trivial to find something you're looking for if you know the words ("name") in a digital document. Celarnor Talk to me 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, per privacy of names we need to see that it is widely disseminated, and "when evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.". WP:BLP. It is not widely disseminated in scholarly journals nor in works of recognized experts (and there have been 100s and 100s of books mentioning the case)[37] nor even in the news media. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is crystal clear that we err on the side of privacy with regard to articles on living persons. I haven't seen any case made, much less a compelling one, that including the person's real name materially improves the article. Worse, the subject of the article is in no position to advocate for herself, a remedy envisioned in the BLP policy as an important check on what we do here. One editor seems intent on including the real name, in the article and elsewhere, in the face of our policy and the views of other editors on the article's talk page. This disruptive behavior must stop now. If it doesn't, I believe sanctions are in order.--agr (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I could understand where this might be a problem if the information in question wasn't only a JSTOR search of "Genie" + "real name" , or a search of news articles about the subject away. However, this simply isn't the case; its pretty widely disseminated at this point. By including it, we wouldn't be pushing into light some obscure fact about the subject that was never known until now except by a few select sources. Celarnor Talk to me 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we're not revealing unknown, or even little-known, information, there's no BLP case here. Including the real name improves specificity and accuracy, goals for which a reference work should always strive, so there is a clear improvement in including real names when they are already known and available to the public. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But we would be revealing little known information. Psychology and linguistic students all over the world know her only as Genie. In the last thirty seven years, only 1 book has mentioned her full name, and 2 related newspaper articles have given her last name in the context of relatives of the 100s written. Do you really think this is widely disseminated and well-known? Even if we look at websites (which we cannot possibly use on a BLP anyway), the only way to find the real name (without knowing it first) is to trawl through the many, many websites that don't give the real name with the aim of finding the few that do. Try it. Even Celarnor's suggestion of Genie + "real name" provides this [38] reveals only 3 hits with a partial name in the first 100, none of them reliable sources. In any case, WP:BLP re privacy of names is clear that we need to place greater weight on what scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts have decided to do regarding the name. I am actually a bit confused by Celarnor's comment about JSTOR. Do you realize that no article in listed JSTOR mentions her name at all? That yes, Genie + her last name comes up with some hits, but only because her last name is the same as the name a publishing company that appears in the bibliography? Her name is not a search away in academic texts, academic articles, nor in any Factiva or Lexis Nexis newspaper articles search. It is not widely known. --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also point out that cases like this are extremely rare so there is no lack of "specificity and accuracy" in just using the name Genie. Further, the editors working on this article formed a consensus based on the spirit and letter of WP:BLP that the real name is not needed in the article. The one editor in question has not accepted that consensus, but in a classic example of WP:Tendentious editing continues to press for its inclusion and has attempted to get the real name into Wikipedia through other means, such as creating redirects, including it on his user page and adding Genie's non-notable brother's name to a disambig page. I see that elsewhere on this noticeboard there is a discussion of whether to include porn actors' real names in their bios. That we are even considering such a question under BLP suggests that in this case, involving a woman who was a victim of a crime (child abuse), has done nothing to seek publicity, is apparently institutionalized from the crime's effects and is totally unable to protect herself or even express her wishes, the real name should be excluded from Wikipedia. --agr (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, I too am in favor of not revealing her full name in this article. The fact that the real name appears in other online resources, while not irrelevant, is not dispositive IMHO. This poor person is notable mainly as a case study. Her full name adds nothing in the way of specificity to her article - that need is appropriately addressed by her alias, which appears to be entirely sufficient to permit easy identification of the aspect of her life that is notable. I am not certain that we, in general, give sufficient consideration to how drastically inclusion of information on WP will influence search engine results. Inclusion of the name would not simply make it easier to find for those who look for that information on WP, it will make it easier to find for everybody. When, as in this case, the person is essentially WP:BLP1E or in cases of marginal notability, I think much greater caution with this type of personal information is warranted. Xymmax So let it be written nSo let it be done 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too feel the full name should be left out for the reasons mentioned. --Faith (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement with the editors (including Slp1, agr, Xymmax, and Faith) who support keeping the name out of the Wikipedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that another convinced by the arguments not include the name, not only for her protection but that of her brother, mentioned in the article (and edit summaries) who is also not a public individual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the brother's name from the article. --agr (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And despite the overwhelming consensus not to include the name, User:Wjhonson has reverted agr's edit and inserted the last name again.[39]--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And has recreated the redirect [40]--Slp1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His persistence in including this material in spite of the opposition of a number of uninvolved editors and administrators who feel it violates BLP is alarming. I see that he has been warned about disruptive editing at the article's talk page. I hope that he'll take note. He has recourse to wider community input, but can't simply push past consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This entire above is erroneous. First my website is not devoted to this case, this case occupies a single page out of hundreds on my site. Secondly I was not the person who added my site as a source (afair), in fact I think I removed it, and someone else added it back again. The reason for including the name is for research purposes. Without knowing the full name is <remove name> you cannot find the case in the relevant newspapers at the time. There were dozens of articles about this case, flung across the country when she was found. These were reported on the newswires and reprinted all over the map. This was not a hushed-up local case by any means. The reportage went on for well over a month on this case, it was quite well-known. BLP does not cover a situation like that, the name was widely disseminated. Whether it was not later-on is not relevant to BLP. Lastly, the fact that I was *not* informed that any of the previous discussions were even taking place is quite extraordinary. It is common courtesy to inform all participants when a discussion is taking place. Wjhonson (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have corrected website to webpage. My apologies for the error in terminology.--Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you may have been the first to remove it, but you have added it back numerous times after that despite the overwhelming consensus to leave it out. Second, I did post a notice on the Genie talk board saying that I've added a request at BLP/N after you advised me to take our disagreement here. Whether or not you have one page on your site or multiple pages on your site devoted to Genie is not the point (you yourself have said that your page on Genie is one of the largest you've ever written). The point is that you were the first person to discover her name and add it to the article and you have been the ONLY person pushing this hard to keep her name in the article, while the number of people arguing against you has been constantly growing. You keep saying that our attempts to keep her name out of the article is a form of censorship but that's not what it is. Censorship is the suppression of information with the intention of protecting the public. Keeping her name hidden in no way protects the public. It is to protect HER! That HAS to be more important than our duty to document the world for research purposes. For An Angel (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We are an encyclopedia, not a news service. You are certainly free to argue your case, but you are not free to continue to insert this person's real name into Wikipedia against community consensus and BLP policy. I am imposing a 24 hour block. --agr (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since my earlier participation basically boiled down to a "per above" and may be contributing to this editor's perception that lack of familiarity with BLP is the problem, I'm going to spell out why, based on the policy, I believe that the name should be excluded. BLPs should be "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" as "material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends". Under "Presumption in favor of privacy", we're urged to consider the ethical implications of articles, to write conservatively and with respect to basic human dignity. The policy notes that "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I am persuaded that including Genie's name, and also that of her brother, has a serious risk of participating in the victimization of these people, by making it much easier to identify them as individuals and encourage public scrutiny. At this moment, this page is fourth on Google's search for the generic term "Genie". In spite of the recent resurgence in interest in the case occasioned by the Frizl case in Austria, it is the only article about Genie to make the first page. It costs the article nothing substantial to exclude this information. I do not believe this is an overwhelmingly clear case of BLP in terms of Genie herself, but I do think it falls comfortably within the imperative to be conservative to remove the name.
    Her brother seems to be a different matter. I see you've even added the brother's real name to a disambiguation page (and again today). According to this sole interview, this man is a house painter living a modest life who has only ever granted that one interview. BLP indicates that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." There doesn't seem to be any necessity to include his name in Genie's article, much less on a disambiguation page for his own name, as he is a painter who (as the source says) "has never received a minute of treatment or public attention" and who has "shunned almost any association or documentation of his past".
    You have been a Wikipedians for many years longer than I have, and I'm sure you know where to find wider community input when you run up against contrary consensus on an article's talk page. You must realize that persisting in including the information over the repeated objections of a number of contributors (and now uninvolved editors and admins) looks very clearly to be disruptive editing according to the first and third points defining that term. I'm also perplexed by your incorporating those names in your edit summaries given clear, unresolved BLP concerns as you did here and here. It could be perceived as an attempt to to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record. As the policy at Wikipedia:Edit war sets out, efforts to win content disputes through brute force undermine "the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit". BLP concerns particularly require serious consideration, and when enough concerned, informed contributors oppose the inclusion of information under that policy, consensus should be established before the material is restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had been making my arguments on the article talk page, but since Wjhonson claims there that there isn't overwhelming consensus here[41], I thought I'd add my voice here as well. As a victim of horrific child abuse, the girl's story was reported in newspapers, using her full name, more than thirty years ago. After her father committed suicide, the story of an abused child (there are thousands of them) died out, and would have been forgotten except that psychologists became interested in her as a means of testing theories on whether children could learn their native language after early childhood. These psychologists are the ones who have kept interest in her alive, but they changed her name to Genie to protect her privacy, and they always refer to her as Genie in scholarly articles. Yes, you can dig up the archives of some newspaper from 1970 and find her real name, but you won't know that it's Genie you're reading about. Genie's real name has been concealed for her protection. She's written about today as Genie. She's only famous because of being a test case for a theory for psychologists. Simply as a child abuse victim, her fame would not have lasted. Let's follow the trend set by scholarly articles and continue to respect her privacy. She's famous only as a case study, and her real name adds nothing to that. Ashton1983 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the above considerations, I'd point out that this case differs from the usual BLP situation, where the editors working on an article wish to include information that a dissenter, perhaps the subject, wishes to exclude. Here the editors, informed by the policy, formed a consensus to exercise restraint and not mention real names. Even if there were reasons to think WP:BLP allowed some wiggle room here, the judgement of the article's editors deserves our strong support.--agr (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again For An Angel you completely distort the situation. Other than reverts, I have never added a link to my article to this page. Reverts are blind. Rather you had no consensus, and did not even discuss removing information that had been in the article for well over a year. And since that time you have strenuously refused to make any attempt at a neutral position. I do not have "multiple pages" on Genie on my website, I have a single page there, among over 600 pages on other topics. The link to my site was added by another editor. Not only have you vigorously opposed adding her first name which was widely reported by the AP and UPI in dozens of articles across the country, but you have suppressed the recent ABCNews article which directly states that her brother's name was <removed name> and that her father's name was Clark <removed name>. That is censorship. Without knowing her real name is <removed name> or that the family's name is <removed name> you CANNOT find her newspaper accounts. It would be almost impossible. So in effect, to protect the privacy of a person who could care less and does not need your protection (even Susan Curtiss cannot find her so obviously she doesn't need our help), you are preventing any other researchers from ever learning the story as reported at the time. Other researchers can only read what's been reported by people with a strong bias toward a certain view. That is not the purpose of our project, to prop up a distorted view of what actually occurred by suppressing any ability to research the case.Wjhonson (talk)
    Contrary to what agr states above, the editors are not "informed by BLP policy" on this topic. Rather they seek to extend BLP policy to cover a case which it does not. That is the very crux of the matter as pointed out by multiple editors already. Mischaracterizing the situation as being cut and dry does nothing to advance a consensus view. The issue in this case is, when a person's name has already been widely disseminated, but an internet-only search does not necessarily easily reveal it. That is this case. It is nothing else, no matter how hard people try to argue that it's something else. Wjhonson (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Wjhonson, just returning from his block, has continued to disrupt this encyclopedia by [42][43] [44] reintroducing the names under discussion despite warnings from two administrators that this is inappropriate given the consensus against including them. [45][46][47] I have removed them once already and will remove them again.
    Will, this is an encyclopedia not a research aid. Because you are a genealogist/researcher, I can certainly understand that you would find quick and easy access to the newspaper articles etc via the name would be helpful, but this cannot be the only consideration here on WP. We have to think about ethical and moral aspects of a decision to reveal names that for years and years have not been known and the possible consequences for a woman who has never sought nor consented to the public attention she has received. I understand that you feel that we are not interpreting BLP correctly, and maybe that BLP should be rewritten to include specific situations of this sort, but at this point there are 23 editors and administrators who disagree and think the spirit and/or letter of the current version means that the name should not be included. That is a consensus that you must attend to. Perhaps I can try to appeal to you as a professional genealogist: I gather that genealogists should "obtain some evidence of consent before assuming that living people are agreeable to further sharing of information about themselves" and should "respect the rights of others who do not wish information about themselves to be published, referenced or linked on a Web site" (from National Genealogical Society guidelines on Sharing Information With Others and Publishing Web Pages On The Internet.[48][49]) Have you got her consent? Do you really think she would want her name published? Please, please stop. --Slp1 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea about what you're talking. I have no block. The point of this discussion is her very name, so we are certainly allowed to discuss the very point we're discussing. I do not agree, that we cannot report what ABCNews has reported. You think we have to stifle what ABCNews has reported for some obscure privacy of some obscure person that nobody can even find, even knowing all the details of her life. Makes no sense to me. There are certainly not "23 editors and admins" who disagree and if they are they are quite capable of making the policy change and discussing it. Perhaps you are afraid that if you actually discuss it, you'll find nobody agreeing to make that change? Her name has already been widely published, and now widely published once more by ABC. Am I the one republishing her name? No. I am reporting what others have already published. Please stop trying to censor the world. Nobody wants it. This is not, and never has been a violation of BLP. Your argument is flat. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Half the sources I've dug up so far on this case, use the families real names. Wjhonson (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so were you were blocked for 24 hours and it seems you didn't notice[50]!! You were blocked for tendentious disruptive editing against consensus by continuing to reinsert the disputed names on a BLP case. You have now replaced them 3 times subsequently. "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." From the Badlydrawnjeff arbcase [51]. Feel free to continue the discuss the issue if you must but your repeated insertion of the names served absolutely no purpose except to be pointy and disruptive. If you continue this disruptive, pointy editing, you risk being blocked for longer and longer periods. And yes, there are many, many editors (23) who disagree with your arguments and your desire to include the name. Go and count them yourself if you wish. Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Gustafson (disambiguous?)

    Having a bit of trouble figuring out how to make a significant shift (both within the wiki community and with proper syntax).

    There is at present a new bio for John L. Gustafson who has made significant contributions to High Powered Computing, is presently CEO of Massively Parallel Technologies, and is the inventor of Gustafson's Law. There is also a page for a musician John Gustafson who has been in a variety of songs over the last several decades. I think a disambiguation page is necessary (there are also John Gustafson characters in "grumpy old men" played by Jack Lemon and Burgess Meredith.). I am having difficulty in both the implementation, and the permission to do so. There is someone who seems quite protective of the musician site. Advise? Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisourus (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a problem with creating a dab page so long as it is done properly and the links updated. --John (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Faith (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michele Renouf

    Since October 2007, User Byafet has been editing this article to introduce NPOV commentary and language, add unreferenced facts, and delete neutral biographical information. This user has been warned numerous times on his or her talk page to no avail, as the user shows no willingness to engage in discussion. The user shows no sign of stopping this continued pattern of tendentious editing to this article. - EronTalk 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed this and made some MoS corrections, as well as adding back in facts about the conference that were removed (albeit in a neutral fashion), adding 5 of the many citations from the conference wiki article so that the addition is well cited. I think there's more than one dimension to this problem in review and request additional eyes on the article. --Faith (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Saab Lofton

    This author has emailed a complaint about the material that was in the article about him. He's since edited in so as to (in his view) fix problems with the text that was there before. At present the article is entirely lacking in references ... could it please receive the finest of BLP attention, and suitable referenced additions as needed? Possibly bits of the history need deletion, I haven't checked through myself - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked into it and believe it should simply be deleted. I can find no evidence that this person has achieved any level of notability that would meet WP:BIO. His books appear to be vanity press / self-published. It's a puff piece. 67.67.219.223 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Palmer (squash player) shows obvious bias

    Resolved

    In technical terms, Palmer plays a classic attrition game with hard-hitting attacking shots from his opponent's loose shots. He also has a very pure and textbook technique which allows for near perfect shotmaking. Although the emphasis on orthodox racket preparation and followthrough is dimishing these days, Palmer's is beautiful to watch. His deft touch is also exceptional with volley drops taken from exceptional positions throughout his matches. Due to his high level of fitness, he is able to play at a very high intensity for the duration of the match making it very difficult for many opponents to compete.

    This is a bit too much emphasis on how good he is considering this is ment to be an encyclopedic reference. It is also made worse by the fact that he isn't a classical player but a hard hitting - intimindating player who uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his oppponents.

    Please edit this so that the bias is removed or so this whole paragraph is removed. This was obviously written by a fan or someone close to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmanfran (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your suggestion. Someone had already removed a part of that paragraph. I have removed everything else but the first sentence, and I have requested sourcing for that, as well as for allegations that the subject has temper problems that have impacted his career.
    Please be careful when correcting a perceived bias not to go too far in the other direction. Criticism may be appropriately incorporated into articles, but does need verification that the criticism comes from reliable sourcing and is not simply your own observation. It also needs to be fairly represented to remain neutral. You should certainly feel free to remove such observations as "Palmer's is beautiful to watch", but claims that he "uses gamesmanship to intimidate the umpires and his opponents" are not permissible, if not attributed to a reputable source.
    When you encounter problems within articles and meet dispute in your efforts to correct them, you might try opening a conversation at the article's talk page so that you might reach consensus with the editors of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Tisdale

    We got a nice lil' situation here... starting yesterday, folks started adding "Ashley Tisdale has AIDS" bits to the article - as seen here, here and here. The article got fully protected to prevent reinsertion and we've since gotten official denials of the information from Ashley's website, US magazine and People magazine among other sources. Now if this blog entry is true, then what we have here is a deliberate misinformation campaign as retaliation for her covering a Rick Astley song.

    Side note: one wrinkle on all this which is a minor concern for me is a statement in the People magazine story saying: "Another Internet site posted what it claimed was a statement from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles." and this edit where this was inserted into the Wiki article: "She was diagnosed with HIV at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California."... were we made into a primary source on this or was this a case of someone parroting what was said elsewhere on the web without slapping a source on it?

    In any case, since we have a deliberate campaign here, we should have folks watching for this false rumour to appear in other articles on Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    People. :/ I'll certainly be on the look-out myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama‎

    Apparently, there is a contention right now that any mention of William Ayers, a man who has been significantly linked to criticism of Barack Obama and his campaign, is a violation of WP:BLP. I personally believe this is improperly using BLP as a battering ram to get one's own point of view across; however, the controversy exists, and so I have brought it up here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree completely with Evil Spartan, but keep in mind that at Talk:Barack Obama we've been in a long discussion about whether or not to add mention of Ayers to the article, and I expect it to conclude within a few days, now that we've just started a second poll. So far, we're not close to consensus, and no consensus means no addition of Bill Ayers name to the article — and therefore nothing to decide at this noticeboard. That said, it might be useful for editors knowledgable about WP:BLP to chime in over there with their opinions because it might get us closer to consensus. The discussion is spread out over a huge page, but one good, active section where this has come up would be Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options, subsection Option 1: Say nothing about Ayers. Anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with the question may want to participate in the !vote at the section Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Responding here is premature as a ruling, and advice here splits the discussion. If we decide to include Ayers, I'm sure the matter will come right back here. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joss Stone

    Some heavy stuff going on here, needs some attention. Rape allegations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed some stuff inappropriately sourced/unduly weighted and have commented on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Force Research Unit

    Can some of the regulars here take a look at the article on Force Research Unit, an alleged British Military Unit previously operating in the province. The material on any FRU itself is light and the majority of the article is mention of individuals who may or may not have been involved. Sourcing is pretty weak, very reliant on a single self published source, and it appears to be quite a lot of original research to try to stitch it together.

    Thanks

    ALR (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think at least that when even the article lead uses 'alleged', the article should be explicit about WHO claims this. You're also right that most of this article appears not to be about the FRU at all but about related events. Stronger, more explicit sourcing is needed, and the removal of OR synthesis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zakir Naik

    Some controversy about alleged anti-Sunni remarks by an Indian moslem public speaker and educator. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to correct the description of the dispute. It pertains to the insertion of a large amount of poor quality material of negative skew which Agnistus tried several times to insert.[52] He was preceded in this by a 'Sherlock holmes' individual,[53] and before that, by Vikramsingh (talk · contribs) and ISKapoor (talk · contribs). ITAQALLAH 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addendum. The material under the 'Criticism' heading was erroneously reinserted by these individuals into the article despite its presence there already under the lectures heading. The scope of the dispute is therefore about the other material. ITAQALLAH 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gail Collins Pappalardi

    Gail Collins Pappalardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this article to be full of unsourced derogatory information about this living person. So I deleted. Another editor reverted most of my deletion, sourcing only a 1983 indictment. The case was undoubtedly resolved, but the article stops its sourcing with a description of the indictment and defense. At purports to report a resolution of the charges, but provides no source. I'm inclined to delete again. But the other editor and I have a history and I don't want to get into an edit war. Would others concerned about WP:BLP take a look at the page please? David in DC (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a look and added some sources for the information. The sources are from the Pappalardi.com website and claim to be unaltered news articles about the trial. While I'm unable to verify their accuracy completely, in my judgement it seems highly likely that they are genuine. If so, the sourcing concerns would be gone; there may still be issues with balance, and I think it's questionable if she merits her own article at all. Trebor (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out some of the arguments of the presecution and defense from her trial and the opinions of the judge. A WP article is probably not the best place to rehash this. I agree that the article could be a candidate for deletion if the only thing she is notable for is the alleged murder. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ava Lowery

    Ava Lowery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hoping to stimulate some discussion of this article which has been a source of controversy in the past and in particular about the troublesome quotes section which has been added and removed a number of times, most recently without discussion. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article looked okay when I checked it. I made a few small changes but didn't see any BLP problems. I have one small issue about her having received death threats being reported in the article. I'm not sure this is so notable, or verifiable -- in general that is, nothing against Miss Lowery. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and took off the report of the death threats. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Alden

    Appears to be largely original research by the subject of the article, copied from his self-published bio on other sites.

    For example, the phrase "the world's largest blogging company" seems to be Calden's own. I can't find notable research that supports phrases like "an innovative RSS feed reading service".

    The external links in paragraphs at the end of the article seem to be a non-standard format for Wikipedia.

    Some of the details may not be encyclopedic, but I may be biased.

    The company I work for is largely considered the competition the subject is the CEO of, so it is inappropriate for me to update the article myself. Lloydbudd (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (I changed my username from Foolswisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))[reply]

    This should probably be reported at WP:COIN. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported to COIN as suggested Lloydbudd (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurt Vollers

    We need to keep a strong eye on the Kurt Vollers article. Several anons, over the past few days, have been inserting unsourced slandarous claims. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The drug charge is true, according to the Dallas Morning News. [54] I added a brief sentence and a link; perhaps that will discourage the anons from adding lengthy, outlandish accounts of his legal problem. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Julian Baggini

    I would appreciate more eyes on this, and some administrative help if necessary.

    Julian Baggini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a British philosopher and writer that I created a stub in 2005. In June 2006, Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) — who was engaged in a non-notable, real-life dispute with Baggini — added some unsourced and poorly sourced material about that dispute, in violation of BLP. [55] The material was removed by Baggini himself, editing as Hickleup (talk · contribs). [56] Baggini has acknowledged that he is Hickleup. [57]

    In May this year, 90.17.9.22 (talk · contribs) (who appears to be Docmartincohen, or connected in some way) restored the material about the dispute, and made certain other claims about Baggini. [58] [59]

    Baggini complained to the Foundation/OTRS, and separately to me. I reverted and semi-protected the page. The anon e-mailed a pretty rude complaint to me and, this time as Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), starting posting insults on the talk page e.g. [60] [61]. Tim Vickers arrived to endorse the semi-protection, [62] and several other editors posted in support of it. [63] PilotGuy admin-deleted the disputed material. [64]

    Still posting as Wikigiraffe, the anon has started posting the same material to the talk page and restoring it when it's removed, [65] [66] claiming there is a sinister conspiracy to silence him. It has reached the stage where a block might have to be considered, but because I started the stub and have been accused of being involved in an evil plot, I'm reluctant to do it myself. More eyes would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a final warning on Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) talk page, explaining in detail the problemtic nature of the material and the consequences (blocking) that would result from its readdition. CIreland (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope that Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) is not really Dr. Martin Cohen, or I have to say I'm disappointed at the level of maturity of British philosophers. Hopefully, it is his teenage students or something like that. I'm not joking, Merzul (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Wikigiraffes indefinitely because he went on a spree today with posts attempting to out me, which I've admin-deleted. There was also someone at the same time vandalizing my user subpages, and creating accounts such as (paraphrasing) User:Is she as bad as they say she is, which may have been him too. If any other admin wants to take over, and reblock or unblock after a certain time, please do as you see fit. I did it myself only for the sake of speed to minimize the damage. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Query

    (conversation below moved twice to find an appropriate venue to generate discussion)
    Another user has used this source as evidence that Nicole Ritchie "self-identifies as being black". Per WP:BLP, I would like to see a better source for this potentially controversial information. Perhaps I am being too strict. What do others think? --John (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the user and I want to point out that this is an interview from E! Online. The logo may not be visible because it's from the Internet Archive but the copyright is visible at the bottom. Also, the writer "Kristin" is Kristin Dos Santos, a noted entertainment reporter. MrBlondNYC (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (copied from WT:RS to see if I can generate discussion on it) --John (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO, the source is RS as is the author but its weak I'd want to see a secondary source as the first time I read it I thought it was a joke or non serious commentary. The question is, is it a contentious assertion that requires detailed sourcing, has the subject previously disputed the claim. If your answer is no to both then the source is enough though not ideal. Gnangarra 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be better off asking this question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than here as you'll get a wider opinion base. Gnangarra 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will try that. --John (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contend that the assertion of ethnicities to living people is automatically contentious and requires better sources than this archived gossip column. --John (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carl Freer

    User talk:Truthmaker1 is making threats of legal action for sourced information appearing in Carl Freer. There are two very good English language sources (The Sunday Times and The Los Angeles Times) and multiple Swedish sources that say this. I came aboard via an RFC and rewrote the text in question to include Freer's defense, so I think it reads pretty balanced, but Truthmaker1 keeps reverting it with further threats of recruiting others to bolster his case, and/or saying the sources are corrupt (with no corroborating evidence).

    My question for all of the wise ones here, is it a BLP violation if multiple sources list the specific events and the person in question's side is given as well? If you read the newspaper articles they are pretty scathing in their assessment of Freer, so I actually thought the Wiki article text was pretty mild compared to what could be written.

    Here is the text in question:

    • In his teens Freer forged his parents' signature for a loan and was convicted of fraud though Freer says he had his parents' permission to sign on their behalf for a student loan.[1][2] In 2005 he was fined by a German court for buying luxury cars with bounced cheques under the assumed name of Erik (Eric) Jonsson, though Freer says he cancelled the cheques himself because he was "thought he was being sold stolen cars."[1][2]

    refs

    1. ^ a b Anthony James, Michael Gillard (2006-05-21). "The firm that blew it all in two years". The Sunday Times.
    2. ^ a b Jeffrey Fleishman (2006-05-15). "Life in Fast Lane Long Before the Ferrari Crash". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

    Feedback welcome! Renee (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to refer users to Talk:Carl Freer#Wider discussion, which is the most recent discussion on the edits in question. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manhunt (2004 TV series)

    This article is not a BLP but it contains unsourced material about living people that may be considered controverial as it is about their sex life. I don't know what the rules are regarding this re BPL. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which unsourced material are you seeing? The one contestant identified as openly gay cites a news article, which in turn cites the Bravo bio of the contestant. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These people are identified as "Contestants in order of elimination" in addition to Matt Lanter in the Manhunt (2004 TV series) without a reference source:
    • Sean Russell
    • Brian Bernie
    • Casey Ward
    • Micah LaCerte
    • John Stallings
    • Casey Weeks
    • Brett Depue
    • Blake Peyrot
    • Ron Brown
    • Seth Whalen
    • Jason Pruitt
    • Kevin Osborn
    • Paulo Rodriguez
    • Tate Arnett
    • Hunter Daniel
    • Maurice Townsell
    • Kevin Peake (Embedded Model/Spy)
    • Rob Williams (Runner-up)
    • Jon Jonsson (Winner)

    –Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Although one is a "spy" (Kevin Peake) and therefore not openly gay, the others are not spies and are therefore being identified as openly gay without references. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addionally, "Paulo Rodriguez ... was eliminated because of his hair problem" is unsourced. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm confused. Only one person is identified as openly gay, apparently with references. The rest are identified as male participants in the show, but nothing is claimed of their sexuality, unless you believe all male models are gay (in which case the spy would be gay anyway). I agree a better source for the names is ideal but I presume it's one of the things where sourcing from the show is acceptable? (Having said that, I don't see the list as that important and I don't see anything wrong with removing it personally) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the show was about openly gay contenders. The premise of the show is similar to the "Bachelor" series on U.S. television, only for openly gay male contestants. The Embedded Model/Spy, Keven Peake, was meant to be a hidden, not gay, contender to throw some drama into the mix. The person choosing a mate, ala the Bachelor series, could perhaps be unable to discern who was not gay and ultimately "fall in love" and choose the non gay person and thereby presumably be rejected. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum - If the Embedded Model/Spy were actually gay, just not "openly gay", the premise of the program would not make sense. He, of necessity, was straight for the dynamics of the program to work. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (I moved this back from the archive. I removed the archived version since it was potentially misleading as it stood Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Hi, it appears you are mistaken. Nothing in the article suggests the premise you describe above. Indeed, it specifically says "similar to UPN/The CW's America's Next Top Model" and the show is subtitled "The Search For America's Most Gorgeous Male Model". Nothing about similarities to the Bachelor are mentioned. Looking back at old versions of the page, it definitely doesn't sound like the premise you mention is correct. Google searches lead to a similar conclusion. This review in particular [67] "Most noticeable is the “I’m not gay” refrain; despite its open appeal to gay men, the show features only two gay contestants, Ron (eliminated early) and Rob (who didn’t out himself until the fourth week).". It definitely doesn't sound to me like the contestants were, or were intended to be, gay. They simply had to be male models, their sexual orietation was not relevant to the show. I guess you either have the wrong show, or are confusing two or more shows. If there was a show called Manhunt about the search for a mate by a gay bachelor, it doesn't appear we have an article on it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for addressing it. Only "Ron" Brown and "Rob" Williams are identified as openly gay according to the article you provide. Thanks for looking into it. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Roach

    I've moved this to the bottom as it was not getting proper attention from knowledgeable editors. Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a website is being used which does not appear to be a reliable source as I read WP:RS and WP:BLP. That source is used in footnotes 11 and 12. The site appears to be a self-published polemical site, diamond-cutter.org, and the pages being used as references are this one for footnote 11, and this one for footnote 12. I believe that the facts should be sourced to some other reference. This site is also linked in the external links section. I have my doubts about the appropriateness even of that, but I am quite sure that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source under the restrictions of WP:BLP. Could someone who is more familiar with the the requirements for sources for biographies of living persons please review this site and determine whether or not it should be used? Also, please engage the editors on the article talk page, as I am not active in editing the page and don't really want to play middleman for any responses... Shu Li Yen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree that this is not a reliable source. I'll remove it for BLP. --Faith (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to take a look at the history of page. It has already been in mediation over including information from www.diamond-cutter.org. It was determined that the source was OK. See here- [68] Seems there was a bit of sock-puppet activity. Wonder if history is repeating itself? -Vritti (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that the link you provide was closed not with a resolution, but because one participant could no longer continue (a sockpuppet case as you note), and the other participant withdrew. In any case, mediation was and is the wrong venue for a question about the reliability of a source under WP:BLP. This is the correct venue and the source should simply be evaluated by a knowledgeable and neutral party according to WP:BLP and WP:RS. It's not a matter of consensus and consensus can't override the determination. Neither should the matter go unexamined due to past history. If the source does not indeed meet WP:BLP requirements, it should be promptly removed according to WP:BLP. Please don't try to evade having this looked at by bringing up red herrings. Shu Li Yen (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a reliable source. The about page states it was created expressly to address the "growing public concern about the behavior and teachings of Geshe Michael Roach". This shows there is no balance or peer review. --Faith (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michiko Suganuma

    I would have gone and removed the unsourced material in this article, but there wouldn't have been hardly anything left. From my limited understanding of the subject matter, I feel there is a good chance that this will eventually become a good and worthy article on a prominent Japanese artist. That said, I'm not sure how/where to find english-language reliable secondary sources. Any help would be most appreciated. Dalamori (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=218521414"