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.

Inclusion of porn film in Sarah Palin

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

---

For those who don't know, articles related to Sarah Palin are under community probation.

Not long after Sarah Palin became a national public figure in 2008, some porn company produced a film called Who's Nailin' Paylin. Since everything related to Palin seems to generate news, there was a flurry of coverage at the time, but little since. Many public figures have been parodied in porn films, but we don't typically include that fact in their biographies. Since the film's release, mention of it periodically crops up when various editors want to include the film in Wikipedia's biography of Palin, either in the main article or in Public image of Sarah Palin. The current iteration of the discussion can be found here, only a little while after the last time the subject was hashed over. I'm hoping to get some consensus on this issue, and have the decision added to Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation so we can stop endlessly rehashing it, and least for the time being. Kelly ^hi! 07:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If the vast majority of reliable source coverage was at the time of the film's release, then WP:Recentism would apply to that coverage. That's not to say that it cannot be mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia, for example in an article about the young starlet who had the honor of playing the part. But putting it in any of the Palin articles would be inappropriate absent continuing reliable-source coverage. Same goes for the porn stars who have played Obama. NOTE: I have already opined on this subject at the Palin talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

there are a few issues being brought up here that need to be solved before this issue can be put to rest.

• 1- I am not aware of many public figures having independent porn parody film about them, produced by a major porn company. In my mind, such a film is notable for inclusion in an article on the subject as a mention. I have heard mention of Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama. As I has stated, I am not aware of the depth of coverage of these videos, so I cannot compare them to this situation.
• 2- Recentism: If we look at long term notability of public firures, there are generally very few things that will generate lasting public discussion. I can assure you you wont see a news story on Sarah Palin's "construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a 0.5% sales tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue." Nor in my mind does the inclusion of this fact result in an overburdening of the article, the article is already established and therefore is not in jeapordy of being created on flimsy, transient merits. Nor does it dilute the article or Mrs. Palin.
• 3- BLP issues. I have yet to be informed on what issues this may pose, but I await some opinion.

4*-In my opinion, there is a place for this information, Public image of Sarah Palin. Personally I dont see how much of this information should be allowed but a film parody not be, a poster is hardly newsworthy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal was writing about the 14.7 million more than five years after it was an issue in Wasilla.[1]. That was hardly Recentism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly is correct: it is pointless to repeatedly discuss whether linking a porn film to Palin is helpful; such attempts should be ruled out by probation. Someone made a porn film to exploit a prominent person (Palin), and it's fine for bloggers to laugh about it, but it is not Wikipedia's role to promote such obvious nonsense. The matter could be revisited if a reliable source were to show that the film had some significant effect on Palin (say if she announced that the negativity had caused her to retire from politics). Until then, it's titillation, and adds nothing to an understanding of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There are porn parodies of almost everything out there (see Rule 34). For instance, per this list, The Office, 30 Rock, Batman ('60s version by the look of it), Big Lebowski, Brady Bunch, Mighty Ducks, The Cosbys, Scrubs, Seinfeld, Twilight, The X-Files... it goes on and on. By and large, they aren't notable (and aren't mentioned in the articles for the 'parent' film/show/etc). There might well be some less-notable things that have made it into articles, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for discussion of the idea of notability precedents. --GenericBob (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of both of your points of view, and I see them as having two holes.

• 1, wikipedia articles are not intended to promote anything, there is no promotion by mentioning it.
• 2, none of those have received such mainstream media attention. This in and of itself makes the film noteworthy, hense there is an article on wikipedia on it, whereas many of the others do not. What I am seeing here is a disconnect. Why are certain types of parodies involving Mrs. Palin allowed to be noted, what is the criteria? Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing for a violation of WP:WEIGHT, your main argument to do so being WP:OTHERSTUFF. That's not a good idea, especially when it's ultimately about an attempt to violate BLP. Wikipedia is not in the business of breaking the most basic human decency, especially in BLP articles. Personally I wouldn't mind making the occasional exception for Republican politicians, simply based on the principle that they don't deserve it because as a general rule they tend to actively ignore many of the most basic principles of decency as in ignoring other people's right to life, health or freedom as soon as they seem to belong to some kind of outgroup. But I doubt there will be a consensus for this kind of exception. Hans Adler 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The only real issues are: does inclusion of a porn film improve the article as a BLP. AFAICT, it does not. Is it actually relevant to the living person? Only in that it seeks to make fun of her. Period. Collect (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Appending: BLP applies to all "subarticles" on a living person." The porn film has nothing of value to do with Palin at all, and to add it to any article is an insult to WP standards entirely. Collect (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it could be seen as a commentary on a person of interest, any other view could run afowl of judging the content, which is not our job. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't be included. It's undue weight to focus on such a minor and embarrassing trifle when the subject is so well-known. WP:UNDUE applies here ThemFromSpace 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Words such as embarrassing trouble me, again, it seems as though you are focusing on the content, rather than actual policy or procedure. Obviously there is something that allows certain parodies to be included, what is it and why is this different? I'm not using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm trying to see a dividing line. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. Trivial, and of no significant relevance to the biography subject. There may well be a case for mentioning direct media parody of Palin herself, but the porn industry isn't a recognised source of political satire. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy saying so? The porn industry isnt recognized as a source for much of anything, that doesnt mean that it should be minimalized. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I just nominated it for deletion. Borock (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To make the above clear, Borock has nominated Who's Nailin' Paylin? for deletion. This is another issue entirely. Can we stick to the subject in question, which is whether this film should be mentioned in the Palin bio? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. The AfD is going down in flames. However I think I did present a good (if unusual) case for deletion. :-) -Borock (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should not be included. It has nothing to do with her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this argument before and I dont understand it. A parody is a parody no matter the intent or the creator. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record: it's trivial, not biographical. And noting that there is now at least one rehash of this, that, or another "embarrass Palin"-related trivia every day or so, I'm beginning to think that it might be helpful for Talk:Sarah Palin to simply be redirected to this noticeboard. jæs (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you bring up a good point. This information doesnt seem biographical, but, I would say that we are an encyclopedia, not the biography channel. Verifiable information about a living person that does not violate BLP should be included. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't include; not noteworthy. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the BLP issue here. It's a well-sourced fact relating to a public figure. Whether it's noteworthy, relevant, and encyclopedic is another matter we can discuss elsewhere, and if memory serves, which we have. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Include in Public image of Sarah Palin. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't mention in any other articles, lists, templates, etc. Please use WP:Common sense. Imagine if this kind of film was made about Michelle Obama. Do you think we would mention that in her bio? Borock (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not in her bio, as has already been suggested, but in a page about her public image, I think would be acceptable. People here are making a judgement about the importance of people in certain articles, I think should be avoided. We need to enforce the policies across the board. If it is unacceptable in one article, it is unacceptable in all (BLP) articles, not just the prominent ones. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Include in public image article but not in main bio. My comments:

Information about the film isn't important enough for the main bio article, given how much else there is to cover about Sarah Palin, but that's why we have daughter articles (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style)). This film is a parody, but Parodies of Sarah Palin was merged into Public image of Sarah Palin in the AfD process. As a result, information about parodies goes into the public image article unless and until we take the more sensible course of re-establishing the separate parodies article.

Anythingyouwant argues above that "putting [a mention of the film] in any of the Palin articles would be inappropriate absent continuing reliable-source coverage." What's the basis, in policies or guidelines, for that asserted standard? There's quite a bit of material in the main Palin bio, and even more in the various daughter articles, that isn't being rehashed in reliable sources every month. In that respect the film is like Barack Obama's history of cocaine use, which is properly mentioned in his main bio even though all the facts came out long ago and few if any reliable sources are currently writing breathless exposés on the subject.

This thread includes repeated reference to WP:BLP but without elaboration. I object to the implication that invoking the mantra "BLP", without more, constitutes an argument for omitting information. Adherents of this view should identify the aspect of the policy that's involved (direct quotation is a good idea) and explain why a particular assertion in a bio would violate it. What I see in the policy is: "Contentious material about living persons 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." This material is not contentious because there is no good-faith dispute about the basic facts -- the film was made by Hustler Video, it stars an actress who resembles Sarah Palin, and no one in his or right mind thinks the film is an assertion about the actual conduct of the real Sarah Palin. So, what's contentious here? (BLP also cautions against invasions of privacy, which is a concern only if some of those favoring omission believe that the film does reflect the reality of her personal life.) JamesMLane t c 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

James, if something happened in 2002, and all the news coverage about it was in 2008, then I don't think there's a Recentism problem. But if something happened in 2008 and all the coverage was in 2008 then there is a Recentism problem. The latter Recentism problem reduces the value to Wikipedia, so that it would be undue weight to include in the Palin articles (but it is not undue weight in an article about the film or the thespians who performed therein).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to suggest that as a proposed policy, but my question was whether there's any basis in existing policies or guidelines for your preference. Wikipedia:Recentism is a personal essay. I for one do not agree with your view of it, which would apparently call for purging the Protests section from the 2008 Republican National Convention article (not to mention the same section in the 2004 Republican National Convention article) just because the media coverage has by now largely died down. As for undue weight, we have daughter articles for the precise purpose of accommodating information that's not important enough for the main article. I look at our mass of Sarah Palin coverage (a total of more than 20 articles), and ask whether in all that verbiage it's undue weight if one of the daughter articles includes a sentence or two about this film. To me, that's clearly not undue weight. JamesMLane t c 21:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The basic principles of WP:Recentism have long been adopted as official Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOTNEWS. Also, please note that the porn in question is already accessible from the main Palin article, by clicking on "what links here".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur wih James' views Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone said "I object to the implication that invoking the mantra 'BLP', without more, constitutes an argument for omitting information." Since in recent weeks I have made that same argument here in four or five other disputes, I wanted to specify why I don't agree on this one. I have argued that we violate NPOV when we leave out the fact that a biographical subject has been arrested, sanctioned, or the subject of a controversy based on his own intemperate remarks. I have even, more uneasily, made the argument about the arrest of the subject's spouse. However, I believe the existence of a porn film purporting to portray or satirize the subject, without her consent, is not notable, significant, relevant, useful, or "encyclopedic". I get to this conclusion at least two ways. One, someone said here, and it sounds credible, that there are porn films purporting to portray almost every public figure. If we let this one in, we would have to add an obligatory porn section to every other biography. Secondly, I propose a search test. Someone seeking to confirm if a scientist has had to negotiate some kind of settlement with a federal agency, or to see if that person has been the subject of a controversy based on political remarks, will search that person's name--and find a potentially incomplete Wikipedia article, if the information is not there. Someone looking for more on a porn film portraying Sarah Palin will certainly search "Sarah Palin porn film". There is simply no reason for this to be in the main article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree on your second point, except that they may do what I did, and go to the Sarah Palin article and search for the words sex or porn. But I agree the main article is not the best place for it. On your first point, again, I think it is simple to put a rule in place. The production must be a full length film by a major production company. That eliminates small time productions. I do think it inappropriate to discriminate based on individual as well, we are putting a rule in place that, "oh we can allow things in some articles, but this person is too public to allow it." Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you apparently misunderstand the argument. The policy isn't, as you say: "We can allow things in some articles, but this person is too public to allow it." It's more along the lines of: "this person is too alive to allow it." I'd argue the same policy applies to the biographies of any person, but it's especially heightened for biographies of living persons.

It is inappropriate to include any old (or new) pornographic film — regardless of its budget — as some sort of material biographic fact without reliable, long-term sources indicating that the film is a significant aspect of the life of that person. None of the reliable sources presented relating to "Who's Nailin' Paylin" show it to be a significant, biographical aspect of Sarah Palin's life or her public image. Given the film has had its fifteen seconds of fame, I don't foresee that changing. jæs (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not understand why continued coverage keeps on coming up. 1)It has received at least some mention in RS discussing Palin a couple years after the films release. 2) Notability guidelines are for article creation and not content. Also, why is UNDUE coming up? Do people mean prominence? Undue weight has to do with viewpoints. There is no reason to bury this or even consider it embarrassing. A public figure was parodied and it received attention. Porn parodying other figures may or may not warrant inclusion but this parody was significant enough for a single line. A whole section might be too much but not mentioning it all appears to me to be trying to hard to limit article content since some look at it as embarrassing. Since Palin did not star in the movie I don't even see that as a viable excuse.Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"It has received at least some mention..." is not sufficient to prove that it is a relevant and significant part of her biography — so relevant and significant that it is absolutely necessary that we mention it in every (or any) article relating to Palin here. That being said, if you have any recent sources that indicate that this film has become a permanent part of her biography — or even her public image — please share them. jæs (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The film came out in November 2008. I searched the article (including footnotes) for any mention of "2010" to no avail. NOTE: the Wikipedia article on the film says: "the film includes spoofs of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Todd Palin and Bill O'Reilly." Maybe we ought to notify editors at the Hillary Clinton articles that this BLPN thread may lead to the film being mentioned in an article about Clinton?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've notified those four article talk pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to include this film are pretty futile. Suffice to say that 'Palin has been parodied in a number of forums, most notably by Tina Fey on SNL'. You might even add that, 'Her folksy accent, Alaskan parochialism, attractive appearance, and active outdoor lifestyle have all been targeted.' But a porn film about her just doesn't deserve mention in the broader context about her public image. At all. Ocaasi (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One idea that has been advanced in this discussion without a lot of critical response is that the porn film is a "parody" and should be treated as such. The purpose of a porn film is not principally to satirize its subject, but to exploit that individual's name and appearance for $$$. I think calling it a parody legitimizes it and gives it some undeserved cover both in terms of notability and legal protection. After all, portraying a nonpublic person as a character in a porn film might be libellous. Using Palin's name only skates by because she is a public figure. This is the one case so far where I think information we would not include about a barely notable person under WP:BLP should not be included about a notorious figure either. FWIW, I personally more than dislike Palin, I think she's a dangerous demagogue--but I respect Wikipedia's mission and NPOV standard more. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, it's not a drama. If Palin's name and appearance have been exploited for profit, let's say that, period. Mentioning Nailin' Palin really just heaps notoriety on top of that exploitation, insult to injury. I think this one is pretty uncontroversial, and though many editors probably don't like Palin's politics will also not stoop to knock-off porn DVDs in anyone's bio. Ocaasi (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here due to Anythingyouwant's petition notification asking for views from other talk pages. I don't see this as a BLP issue, per JamesMLane's statement "no one in his or her right mind thinks the film is an assertion about the actual conduct of the real Sarah Palin". I wasn't aware that there were any porn parodies of Hillary Clinton, but if there are, that's not a BLP issue either. Whether or not to mention these in any article about Palin or anyone else is an editorial judgment about the visibility of the film and its importance in affecting Palin's image, for good or for bad. Clearly, for example, Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin has had a significant effect – when I was in Alaska last year I saw several sweatshirts that read "ALASKA: I can see Russia from my house!" Whether this film has had enough of an effect to warrant a mention somewhere, I don't know enough to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I really could do without credit for a comment like that, and you really should study some things, WTR. For example: the difference between notification and petitioning (perhaps you meant canvassing?). Also: the content of WP:BLP, which says that editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to make sure it "adhere[s] strictly" to neutral point of view (NPOV). It plainly is not neutral to dig up slimy information that amounted to no more than a brief blip during 2008 (and even if you think it's neutral you should at least see that strict neutrality is an issue here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Have been in the process of shoveling two or more feet of snow off my driveway and didn't think/mean to imply anything by the wording, now corrected to "notification". As for BLP, I still don't see this as an issue. I remember in the mid-70s, part of my commute involved walking across 42nd Street in New York. There was some look-alike porn actress on the marquees back then called Carra Foucett-Minor or something like that, as a play on the then-uber-popular Farrah Fawcett-Majors. Her existence and her films didn't represent anything "slimy" about Farrah, any more than this thing represents anything slimy about Palin; at most it's a measure of their celebrity and/or perceived attractiveness, and at least it's a trifle not worth mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The snow is good exercise for you.  :-). Please observe that the Farrah Fawcett article does not seem to mention the "Carra" to whom you refer. Regardless of whether the Palin-Clinton porn film is slimy, mentioning it in their Wikipedia biographies would be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's no 2010 (or 2009, for that matter) note in The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin, and that didn't stopped it from being mentioned in Public image of Sarah Palin and in Template:Sarah Palin. I don't see what makes it so different from this other parody, other than being a porn film - what everyone should be honest enough to say it's the real issue, not BLP or NPOV. The film is noteworthy, it won a bunch of awards and was mentioned than a few times by media. The lack of 2010 notes in the article is due the fact it isn't updated. See Anexo:Sequências de Who's Nailin' Paylin e Who's Nailin' Paylin?, both in portuguese. There's no reason to remove the mentions to the prank, to Sara Benincasa, Gina Gershon or Kelly Ripa, so why this should? What's funny is that, if you take Gina Gershon's parodies, for example, there's no mention in the article to its notability. The porn film, aparently, has received a broader coverage, and more media attention, not to mention the previously noted awards it has received. Maddox (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument, that everyone expressing WP:BLP concerns when that's not the "real issue," is not very compelling. If this were some made-for-television biopic, it would be quite a different issue. Yes, a pornographic film is different from other types of films, and yes, by its very nature, it's considerably more "contentious." However, the crux of the matter would be that the hypothetical Palin biopic would be about Palin, while the film in question here merely utilized her likeness to sell more copies. That's what Hustler has been doing, very successfully, for a very long time. That doesn't make their films a relevant part of the biography of any person they choose to "parody," just because said films receive passing mentions in reliable sources shortly after their release. jæs (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reply makes it sound like I was suggesting the inclusion in Sarah Palin. My argument points there's no reason this shouldn't be included in Public image of Sarah Palin. You mentioned WP:RECENT, but why it doesn't matter when it comes to the prank and all the other parodies I have mentioned, only to this film? 'All the parodies received media attention only during 2008. This film, curiosamente, continued to received in 2009 and 2010. Maddox (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what recent links do you have that show that this film is biographical to Palin? As to your core argument, public image of Sarah Palin still is subject to wp:blp, just as much as is the Sarah Palin article. Your other point gets to the heart of a sort of content-level "other stuff exists" fallacy. I'm not taking a position on any of the other content in the public image article, and I don't have to defend that content to know that this content is not biographical, for any of a multitude of reasons. jæs (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain, says the same page. "Other stuff exist" is only a falacy if the comparison is invalid. It's not the case here.

A parody is a reflection of its time. And, just like the Masked Avengers' prank, Who's Nailin' Paylin is not a BLP vio, but a representation of the impact Palin nomination for VP had.

Maddox (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying you have recent sources, but it's impossible for anyone else to understand your arguments without having access to those same sources. So once again, can you please provide here at least some of the specific, reliable sources that you believe establish that this film has become a significant part of the biography or public image of Sarah Palin? jæs (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the third time you're asking for these links - that I only mentioned once, and not "kept saying", like your reply tries to make it look - instead of looking to any of the other points I have mentioned. I could mention the xbiz and avn nominations, or the awards the film and the series it has inspired won. I could even argue that this film has inspired four different sequels, but that's only one of the things that need to be discussed, but you are ignoring them. I already posted links to the pages about these films in another wikipedia. When I compared this film to the prank, you called this "argument" a "fallacy", and now is apparently chosing to ignore my reply to that...

Maddox (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation that the number of sequels somehow indicates biographical significance is original research. The three links you provided are, in no particular order: an unreliable blog, an unreliable blog, and an unreliable blog. Whether or not the film has won some sort of adult entertainment industry award does not establish biographical relevance to Palin. This is a biography of a living person we're discussing here, so it might help if you could review wp:blp and wp:rs before continuing. Thanks. jæs (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find it depressing that this is even being considered. We've had a BLP policy in place for several years, the letter and spirit of which is that we always err on the side of caution, and that apart I'd have hoped that in 2010 we'd be beyond portraying women politicians as porn stars. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is America, and anyone can satirize anyone. That doesn't make such satire notable or relevant. During the 1966 California Governor campaign, a club somewhere featured a couple of strippers dubbed "Ronni Reagan and Patti Brown". Yet that info does not appear in the articles of either Ronald Reagan or Pat Brown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense to compare a couple of strippers to a award-winning film that has been mentioned in The Guardian and Marie Claire...

Maddox (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not so ridiculous, eh Maddox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think there should be a strong presumption against including this kind of material. The only time this sort of 'parody' should be mentioned in a biography is when an editor can unequivocally show a relevance to the subject of the biography, like for example, if the biography subject appeared in the film or was obviously and profoundly effected by the film. And I think this presumption of exclusion goes for both porn and more mild parodies like south park/family guy. In this instance, the only case for relevance to Sarah Palin is the remarkably weak claim that it must be relevant because it appears in some (possibly) reliable sources, which falls well short of relevance in my view. Bonewah (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is completely unworthy of inclusion into the article. At most, I would say it warrants a link in the "See also" section, but even that would be dubious. It definitely does not warrant even a single sentence in the text of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• There's no good reason to include this in the main article on Palin. If it is going to get a mention in the public image article, that might not be absolutely insane, but there better be damn well a lot of sources, and right now, it looks like other than mention when it first came out there's very little coverage (other than the porn awards it won). The awards are probably enough to justify the separate article, but I'm still very leery of having a mention in the main article on Palin. In general, we haven't in the past had such parodies be included in articles about major figures. For example, the Richard Dawkins article does not discuss the South Park parody at all. The comparison to the Masked Avengers prank also isn't great, not only because of the fact that this is porn, but also because that prank actually involved Sarah Palin. At this point, I'm leaning slightly to not including the mention. I could be possibly convinced if sources could be found that specifically asserted that the film in question impacted the general public perception of Palin (very doubtful) or that it reflected some aspect of the general perception (more plausible). Either one of those would make it more relevant. So right now, I guess I'm confused by leaning against inclusion. I agree that unmerging the general parody article may be the best bet. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS. THF (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Per THF. This is precisely the kind of thing that will always be removed by editors who take the BLP issue seriously. Thanks for asking, rather than simply inserting it. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

He asked the same question on the Reliable Source noticeboard, got the same answer and inserted the reference anyway. I just deleted it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fernanda_Karina_Somaggio

This article seems notable, but it really, really needs sourcing, because it's full of contentious unsourced statements. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Disgraceful unsourced negative BLP for FIVE years. Duly nuked.--Scott Mac 14:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Wilson

An edit war is about to start on Rebecca Wilson as a user is contesting my removal of inadaquately sourced information. The publisher might be reliable but the article itself is a blatant attack peice by the author. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In which wikipedia policy does it say that a newspaper article has to be treat a subject nicely to be verifiable?JusticeSonic (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So the source is the paragraph beginning "As part of the attack on the Roosters ..."? To my eye including this material in Wikipedia is a non-trivial BLP violation; it's a rather nasty personal editorial that happens to be published in a major newspaper. Unless the incident can be sourced to a neutral RS it shouldn't be in our article. Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is a gossip columnist of a major Australian newspaper.JusticeSonic (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, find a proper source that specifies what Wilson did, and when. Then we can discuss whether it is notable enough to include in the bio - I'd say that unless it attracted significant attention at the time, or is still an issue, it probably doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Niger Innis

I have concerns about the inclusion in this article of MSNBC's typographical error in which Niger Innis was captioned ""Nigger Innis". It has nothing to do with the subject of this BLP; it seems to be that to include it is giving undue weight to a trivial incident (for which the subject of the article is not responsible), and that the effect of its inclusion is to denigrate the subject of the article. It's puerile/childish/laddish/sniggering/immature/immaterial etc. none of which should be what Wikipedia aspires to. I'd be glad for additional input on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Petrus Kalil

What is regarded as best practice when a contentious BLP has no English-language sources? The above is sourced entirely to Portuguese-language newspapers and websites. I can't tell how notable they are. Some of the claims seem to be correct (the man was charged with some form of organized crime), but others are convoluted and involve other members of his family, some of whom have complained, including during an AfD last year—these posts, for example, are from someone who says he's the subject's grandson.

My preference would be to stub it down and request English sources, but having looked on Google there don't appear to be any, so it would probably remain a stub. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you posted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English ? This is a good place to find foreign language-fluent editors for clean up, even when the article is already in English. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Foreign language sources are (all other things being equal) no less reliable than English language sources. However, the only quality control wikipedia has (and thus the only protection as subject has from libels) is the ability of one editor to check the accuracy of what another has submitted. That doesn't always happen anyway, but where the source is less-accessible either because it is foreign language or offline or hard to get, the chances of anyone being able and willing to do that are significantly reduced. It can be done, but mostly it won't. Personally, I think we should insist on reliable english on-line sources for all negative BLP material, but that's going to be a hard fight to win.--Scott Mac 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. A family member has now turned up on the talk page objecting to various points. I think we should try to change the BLP policy on this, because it's not only a question of checking that the source says what we claim it says (which can be checked, sort of, using Google Translate). It's also checking that the source is a high quality one, and that the story is carefully written, and these are nuances we can't be expected to recognize for non-English sources. Having to arrange for a knowledgeable translator who's familiar with these issues is very time-consuming, so most editors understandably won't want to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

100% agree. If you need any support in trying to change things, let me know.--Scott Mac 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try to put something brief together and give you a shout. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic with the potential problems and issues, but I don't think the answer is to insist on online English-language material for all negative material. I am, for example, fluent in French, and well able judge newspaper quality issues in that language. Sometimes the best sources are in a foreign language, one that many editors know well. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the best sources about Klaas Carel Faber, convicted Dutch war criminal, are in Dutch and German. I agree that that the article listed above is problematic, with absolutely no English sources available or provided. But I think tightening of policy needs to be carefully directed to the core problem here, rather than to hamstring bilingual editors writing about notable subjects, where the detail and perhaps the best sources are mainly available in another language. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A more flexible approach that still addresses the problem might be to insist that if negative BLP material is cited to non-English or offline sources, it must first be verified by someone other than the contributor of the material before it is allowed to remain. For non-English sources, the person verifying it should be fluent enough in the language to speak confidently about the quality of the source and the accuracy of its use in the article. Material based on sources not yet verified should be moved to the talk page, and maybe a notification template and/or noticeboard can be crafted to alert interested editors that their language skills or access to offline sources are needed. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's worth considering, Alan, though it wouldn't necessarily help in a situation where we have partisan editing going on, and where other accounts could arrive to confirm the contents. Slp, what would you suggest? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it could be gamed with false verifications by partisan editors. But, so long as the rule is framed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for use of the source, that might not be a fatal flaw. Concerned editors could seek additional verification from non-partisans, or challenge the source on other grounds as appropriate. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It raises the questions: "best sources" for what purpose? I agree that the best sources for writing articles are not necessarily English language, and not necessarily easily accessible to the reader. I'd agree that the best sources for pointing the reader to may well be specialist, particularly if the article implies a specialist knowledge. However, there is also the question of Quality Control. In a print encyclopedia this is given by the author who is named and responsible. The reader is invited to trust the author - who has put his professional reputation behind all facts asserted. Wikipedia has anonymous and (largely) unaccountable authors, so the only Quality control we have is "crowd sourced fact-checking". That's hit and miss as it is. But if the source can only be checked by the small minority of Wikipedians fluent that language, knowledgeable in the reliability of sources in that language, and having access to those sources, then our Quality control is almost non-existent. I don't think anyone wishes to disallow foreign language sources, however is isn't unreasonable to say that if we are making negative claims about a living person, we need to have sources that can reasonably be checked by the limited quality control we have. I doubt that an application of this would exclude much that's not of marginal notability anyway.--Scott Mac 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with that last comment, which, you'll forgive me for saying so, seems to imply a rather anglo-centric view for a global encyclopedia. I have been sourcing unreferenced Canadian BLPs, and unsurprisingly as a bilingual country, have found articles about notable subjects which it would be impossible to source without using French sources. Here's one from today, François Labbé. Luckily to date most (all?) has been uncontroversial biographical stuff, but what if a negative thing or two had emerged? It doesn't seem right to institutionalize "positive" material only such situations. As mentioned above, the English language sources for Klaas Carel Faber's life are very limited, and even contradictory, as compared to sources in Dutch/German. English media very often does not cover non-English, or especially non-Western subjects well at all. As a project aiming to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects in all countries and cultures, I couldn't support a policy that would forbid the inclusion of well-sourced information from non-English sources, nor, incidentally from offline ones, since these may be the most accurate and even least "biased" sources available.

Having said that I totally agree with the necessity of verifiability and quality control, and clearly see the problems that foreign language/offline sources create most particularly in BLPs. Some possible solutions to ease the fact-checking and prevent damage: require the foreign language/offline source for negative material to be quoted as part of the citation in its original language (just like translated quotes are required to be); per Analyst, permit any editor to remove negative BLP material cited to foreign language/offline, with the requirement that it can only be replaced if it has been verified by an independent editor contacted via Wikipedia:Translators available or babel boxes (for languages- not sure exactly how to manage this for offline sources). --Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should stand on principle when it comes to BLPs, Slp. We have to be practical. Yes, we want to be a global encyclopedia using the best sources. But we can't judge whether they're the best sources if they're all written in Icelandic. Finding editors who can, or trying to muddle along ourselves, is incredibly time-consuming, so it doesn't get done. And it's not as if we don't have a multitude of other-language WPs where editors are in a position to check. It's arguably anglo-centric to assume that everything in the world must be on this Wikipedia, even if almost no one can make head or tail of the sources, but where we're nevertheless accusing living persons of serious crimes.

Having said that I do think your suggestions have merit, though remember that it's not only about getting a translation, but also being in a position to judge how good the source is. Someone who's learned Spanish in school may not be able to tell us which are the best Spanish-language newsapers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list at Wikipedia:Translators available, many volunteers (including the Icelandic ones!!) are native speakers who likely would be able to offer insight into multiple aspects of a foreign language source. (BTW, I wonder if User:Husond would be able to help you with verifying the Portuguese verification, since he is a native speaker- and there are others if needed). And I would certainly agree that unless and until it is possible to engage an independent fluent speaker to verify material, most especially if it is about serious crimes etc, then out it should go. Perhaps it is because I live in Montreal and know so many people who are fluently bilingual-bicultural that I think finding people for most language verification wouldn't be so very arduous.

I would argue that I am being practical: the article that has sparked this discussion makes very serious allegations, is very long, and contains many sources in a language that relatively few WP editors speak as a first or second language. As such, it seems something of an extreme case, and hard cases make bad law. I would be loath to see major policy changes, such as forbidding the use of such non-English sources, springing from it. Lesser changes such as those suggested above, would, I believe, also have the desired effect. Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try to come up with wording for a proposed change to BLP that takes into account what you say, and which perhaps only strongly encourages English sources. I'll ping you when I've written something, because I want to have a think about it first. Thanks for letting me know about Husond. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slp1 here; hard cases make bad law. BLP concerns are paramount, but it is also very important that we do not discriminate against foreign language sources. Portuguese-speaking editors are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_pt -- I am sure there will be some admins and familiar names among those listed there. Perhaps it would make sense to form a WikiProject for checking contentious BLPs where editors with language skills make themselves available for verifying BLPs with foreign-language sources. --JN466 13:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Objection to stubbify the article

I object to the unilateral decision by SlimVirgen to stubbify the article about Antonio Petrus Kalil. The deletion of most of the article is made by someone who, by her own admission, does not even speak Portuguese. As such she is not qualified to judge the article. I think the decision should not have been taken before a Portuguese speaking editor could have had a look at it and assess if the article reflect the sources. I fail to understand the sudden rush. I request a re-assessment of the decision by neutral admins. - DonCalo (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If material is questioned, we remove it until we can be sure it is safe. Here, the right thing to do is to remove it until we've had a Portuguese speaker verify it - not to leave it in place until one turns up. The principle is sound. If questioned, remove until there is certainty.--Scott Mac 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BLP policy requires us to err on the side of caution. It would be more harmful in real-world terms if the material in the article violated BLP and it were left in, than if it did not violate BLP and were removed. Material cited to foreign language sources that have not been independently verified by a proficient speaker should, in my opinion, be omitted from the article until such verification occurs. I'm sure if a Portuguese speaker with a good understanding of BLP can verify the material against the sources, there should be no problem with re-adding it. I support SlimVirgin's actions given the circumstances, and would equally support restoring the material once it's been verified. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone who does not belong to the inner circle of SlimVirgin would look at the case with a neutral point of view. - DonCalo (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I fit that qualification, actually. We've had very little direct interaction. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with the action of SlimVirgin, once the material is verified it will be very easy to return it to the article, on the other hand if it is not ok there could be serious damage done to the subject by leaving it in the article. J04n(talk page) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's not what's happening here, Don. The people who respond to this board are editors with a particular interest in BLPs. Your version of the article is only 800 words long, so that won't take long to rebuild. The point of asking you to do that is to emphasize that each sentence has to be well-sourced and must not deviate from the source. It's easier to rebuild from that perspective, than for other editors to try to search for problematic sentences where the sourcing is so unclear. Also, you've had a lot of time to do this—at least since the AfD in September 2009, where the same concerns were raised—but you've taken a passive approach to it, not changing things until multiple editors have pointed them out.

What would be helpful is a pro-active anticipation of the points other editors might find contentious, and a willingness to source and write those points very clearly so they can withstand scrutiny. The burden of evidence always lies with the editor who wants to add or restore material, particularly with BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Objection to unnecessary page protection

OK, so I now commit to the growing consensus that the article has to be rebuild, I start rebuilding – adding as much English language sources as possible and adding Portuguese quotes and translations of those quotes, as well as summaries of articles by another editor (see this edit) – and SlimVirgin protects the page from editing, arguing that it first needs be done in a draft version hidden from the general audience. I completely disagree. The rebuilding is better done in the open than in some backward page nobody can find. I request unprotection of the article. - DonCalo (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to start rebuilding it at Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, making sure everything is sourced very clearly, with no ambiguities. I did that precisely so that it's not on public view immediately. Instead, you started rebuilding on the main page, again with reference to murders, where at least one of the sources doesn't say exactly what you said (see the talk page). At this point, Don, you're creating a lot of work for several people, when the onus is 100 percent on you to produce a BLP that's crystal clear in its sourcing and writing, and where you err on the side of caution when it comes to the very serious allegations.

Please rebuild the article on the draft page, and get consensus from the editor who has been complaining. If there are issues that the two of you can't agree on, then other editors can be asked to comment. Once that's done, the consensus material can be moved back into article space. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Don Piper

Don Piper is the author of the book, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Revell 2004). His book details his collision with an 18-wheeler, his experience in Heaven, and his recovery. The story is told against the backdrop of his Christian faith.Several revisions were made to correct material based of faith rather than fact. I take no issue with this. Recently, another author (Rene Jorgensen) published a book refuting the validity of Don's experience. The book is titled Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. It appears someone associated with his book has posted revisions to the article to promote Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. In addition, rather than an objective article about Don Piper, the article now appears as pitting Mr. Jorgensen's opinion against Don's interpretation of his own experience. I have no desire to create a contentious situation, but would it not be better to relocate information about Mr. Jorgensen to a separate article? I would ask you to look at the article and make changes as you deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverrunsthroughit81 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need Don Piper and 90 Minutes in Heaven for a start. We already have an article Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven but as a general comment any critique of the book does belong in the Piper/book article. --Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace Potter and The Nocturnals

The talk page for this article is being used as an attack page, with defamatory and needlessly offensive remarks about the subject. Grubstreet (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like that is simply trolling. If posts to a talk page cannot in any way, even by the most tolerant interpretation, be interpreted as a legitimate discussion of article content they can be aggressively removed. I have done so.--Scott Mac 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Schwiebert

Article contains very few sources and many subjective views. I am going to clean it up. This biography should be closely watched for vandalism or repeated subjectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharefan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

IP Address Has Been Vandalizing the Shaquille_O'Neal article

Vandalism 1: You can see his posts, calling O'Neall "fat" (among other things, the others of which have been deleted) on the discussion page (under the post "The Caption for the Free Throw Pic".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal

Vandalism 2 (changing other peoples discussion-page posts): He also changed one of my (discussion-page) posts (in the "Military Brat" post on the same page, (See revisions to see where he changes what I wrote in my own discussion-post). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal

(I don't know if he also vandalized the main page).

Here is his IP address (Wiki-auto-signed with this): 68.222.172.18

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this user did not vandalize the main page itself. The IP has only made two edits on December 16, so it is safe to assume that the user has not been editing since then. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple articles on Guantanamo detainees using transcripts and court documents as sources

Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi

Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim

Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee

and dozens more......

A question at RSN[2] led to to this AFD discussion [3] and ultimately the article itself.[4]. A large portion of the article consisted of a table of various Guantanamo detainees, with text sourced to transcripts, court documents and similar documents. This clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, and hence I removed it. diff The problem is that there are apparantly dozens of BLP's similarly sourced to such documents, in some cases exclusively sourced to such documents. The three-dozen persons named in the table that I deleted prior version would appear to be the tip of the iceberg. I have neither the time nor energy to track all these instances down and correct them to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I suspect that some of the folks who frequent this page just might have the time and inclination to do so. Fladrif (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Dozens" should be a couple hundred. Pretty much every one of the roughly 200 BLPs referenced at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees has this precise same problem, as does the list itself. And, it would appear that there are a number of sublist articles organized by nationality, etc...each of which should be corrected for this BLP problem. Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Lamb

There is a lot of edit warring going on at the Marcus Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have no idea who is or is not correct, or if any of the sources is or is not correct, and in fact I know nothing about the guy, but the edit warring seems to be rather BLP-violating. Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed -- a rather nasty anon there. I just rejected this change with its lovely legal threat. Seems the additional clause is a needless BLP violation. Antandrus (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no oppinion on this man. I never heard of him before today. But I just read the source, and there's something fishy going on. Apparently he was blackmailed in regard to the affair(just added that bit to the article...) Also, on the talk pages, there are accusations of him teaching the "prosperity gosphel" which means he's a likely target for attack by people who dissagree with prosperity teachings... Tim.thelion (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a proper (newspaper) source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

British ethnicity lists

Resolved

 – reflists added and some WP:RS and all other uncited moved to talkpages Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently proposed the following articles for deletion because they are completely unsourced lists of British people by ethnicity/national origin. My rationale was that "This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list".

• List of Trinidadian Britons
• List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom
• List of British Nigerians
• List of Mexican British people
• List of British people with Greek ancestry
• List of British people of Cypriot descent
• List of Jamaican British people
• List of British Indians
• List of Guyanese Britons
• List of Filipino British people
• List of Dutch Britons
• List of Brazilian British people

-  Done Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposals were declined on the basis that many of the subjects in the lists have sources for their ethnicity in their individual articles (see comments here). I just wanted to get a BLP perspective on this. I'm not convinced that every item on each of the lists is sourced (it would take a long time to check), but to me there should be sources for the list articles even if they already exist in the individual articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an absolute joke that DGG and others should flout WP:V and especially WP:BLP in such a way. All lists are required to have citations, not sourced by "check the linked articles". Thus they fail WP:V and WP:BLP, and I would recommend redirecting them all to the parent articles (I assume they exist?) which would place the burden of evidence on anyone wishing to restore them as articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Start off a [List of British Mongrels] for all those whose ancestry can't be sourced or who had parents from different countries start it of with Winston Churchill, Prince Charles, and Sebastian Coe. John lilburne (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia policy. You can't use a Wikipedia article as a source, full stop. Unsourced lists of anything are contrary to required standards, and when applied to ethnicity in regard to living people contravene so many different aspects of policy that entries should probably be deleted on sight. If that leaves an empty list, so be it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

we are not using a Wikipedia article as a source. We are using a source that appears in a Wikipedia article by citing the article that contain it.. Using a Wikipedia article means relying on the assertions there, and we are not doing so. We could, for example, list all our sources for everything on separate pages or even a separate namespace from the article, and it would still meet WP:V--and there have been such proposals, to have a centralized source database across all the projects. (I think it is even possible that one of the chapters is working on it.) it's just a matter of arrangement. These lists are just navigational devices. They are no different from categories, just prepared and organized in a different mode of expression--we don't list the sources on the category pages either--they are on the linked articles. It's like requiring us to source an index. We source the content, not the index. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists are not "just navigational devices". They are explicitly covered under WP:BLP policy, which requires sourcing. You cannot rely on a source (supposedly) in another Wikipedia article, as there is no guarantee it won't be edit out at a future time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the flipside of the same tired arguement (both sides are tired, I'm not picking on you specifically), that unsourced does not mean unsourceable, and if it is as simple as copying the reference from the main articles to the list article, then there is no compelling reason to delete. --Jayron32 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that shows self-assertion of ethnicity by the person listed, and there are grounds to suggest that their ethnicity is relevant to their notability, then yes, the source can be used, under existing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to say that the sources should simply be copied over, but that would be pretty time consuming given the size of the lists. Also, contrary to some claims, a quick browse of the individual articles suggests that many are not sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If the sources exist and can be copied over, then they are sourceable and should not be deleted. There are only a few thousands, and that is well within our capabilities. I urge whoever thinks they need to be sourced on that particular article rather than indirectly to start working on them. Even those who think them unnecessary probably won't object to them. If ten people cared, and did as few as 10 a day each, one month would = 30,000 a month, which should solve the problem quickly at least for the british, and we could go on from there. ( I doubt it could be done by bot, because it would be necessary to pick the best reference, as we do generally. We should be able to do a bot that would at least pick out certain references and transfer them, e.g. DNB. The relevant rule is SOFIXIT. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the issue, we should never have allowed these uncited additions to be made, not sofixit at all. All users are in there rights to delete all personal uncited claims about living people on sight. Some users support all the rubbish uncited crap and thing it is valuable when it degrades the wikipedia completely. Feel free to delete such uncited genetic and racial claims on sight. Just because some passer by has created such rubbish doesn't assert that we should fix it, delete it and let users that think it is valuable content recreate it correctly. Move it to the talkpage and people that think such a list has value can cite it and replace it. I have dealt with this one List of Trinidadian Britons and this one List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom - Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These lists are a fundamentally flawed concept from the outset, and remind me of this by Randy Newman

Momma used to wheel me past an ice cream wagon

One side for white and one side for colored

I remember trash cans floatin' down canal street

It rained every day one summer

Momma used to take me to audubon park

Show me the ways of the world

She said "here comes a white boy there goes a black one, that one's an octoroon

This little cookie here's a macaroon, that big round thing's a red balloon

And the paper down here's called the picayune

And here's a new orleans tune"

Unless there is some part of the persons notability that is reflected in their ethnicity, what is the point of them being on the list. I can't be bothered to wade through all the nonsense but List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom seriously what are we to make of Edward II in the list? What relevance is it to his life that his mother was from Castile. He was 6 when she died, so I'm having great difficulty attributing the homosexuality, or anything else to him having a Spanish mother. Its like kids sorting M&Ms into little piles. John lilburne (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask it what sense this poem is provided as logical argumentation? DGG ( talk ) 16

13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure you can. It goes to the heart of the issue which is the segregating of people into little boxes without rhyme nor reason. Such lists are rubbish as they lump together notable people (which in itself is a vague term) based on one variant: ethnicity. If the poem didn't make the point clear enough then try this lunacy by J Holt Schooling (fellow of the Royal Statistic Society) published by Pearson Magazine in 1897. It is a little graph where he's lumped together lunatics based on ethnicity to conclude that the Irish are mad and the English are sane. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, these lists are valueless non encyclopedic rubbish and the assertion that experienced contributors should waste hours cleaning them up is wrong and , well , misguided belief that all uncited content is fantastic is nonsense, perhaps years ago all content was great in the great expansion but those days are over. Jimmy himself said , it its not the number of articles but the quality of them. After cleansing articles should be watched for replacement of uncited claims and reverted on sight, if repeated replacements of uncited genetic and racial claims occur, ask for semi protection at the first available opportunity. Don't allow any user to tell you that it is cited somewhere else, neither do users have any responsibility to fix content, actually users have a responsibility to living people that are the subjects of our articles and a responsibility to remove such uncited racial or genetic claims. Move it to the talkpage and let anyone interested in the topic replace the content cited to a reliable location Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

2C-T-21

I would fix this myself but a telephone the size of a slightly ambitious matchbox has its limitations. To summarize, this article contains rather more personal detail than it should. David Linder has launched an unsuccessful legal complaint about it, but that shouldn't prevent us from fixing the article so it doesn't unnecessarily dispense gossip about his role in the affair.

To cut a long story short, we shouldn't be turning a section on clinical side-effects of a drug into a lubricious bit of gossip. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as unsourced and actually irrelevant, since the incident, even if true, has to do with a different death and possibly a different chemical. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some help here, pleae. User:KoshVorlon reverted my edit and re-added the unsourced, irrelevant material about David Linder. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray Tenorio

In the ===Personal Life=== of lieutenant Governor of Guam Ray Tenorio, there is a biased point of view on his childhood, his last name controversy, and children. Under ===Lt. Governor of Guam=== there seems to be a partisan bias. I believe the entire article to be a defamation of Ray Tenorio. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Encyclopedias. The article is filled with heavily researched political and domestic mistakes that everyone goes through. It has been an edit war with USER: Scanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific about your concerns. I can see no way in which the 'entire article' can be a defamation, and I'm not sure what the problem is. The name change issue and lawsuit seem significant enough to be included, are you suggesting there should be nothing that could be considered as negative in the article? I'm not sure everyone does go through these sorts of events. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just found this deletion by the OP, that's probably part of the dispute here. Do others think this should have been deleted? Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I deleted that particular portion to keep neutrality between controversy and verifiable fact based information. I believe it to be neutral and balanced now. I hope you all agree.Mrgates 06:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the deleted text and citations. They seemed to be arbitrarily changed several times from third-party sources, such as newspapers and television news, to sources that solely cited the web sites of the political campaign and political transition team. Entire biographic sections (including third party sources) were removed. I kept some of Mrgates' good faith addititions, such as the inclusion of Tenorio's legistaltive accomplishments, which is a great addition to the article. I would support the removal of the custody material as a compromise (which, however, was an issue in the election campaign), but other career and biographical information should remain, so long as its cited with third-party sources. Have a good day! Scanlan (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Scanlan, I am glad we have come to a consensus. Happy new year. Mrgates 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs)

Adrian Lamo

• Adrian Lamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jse11 (talk · contribs)

Would an admin please delete File:Adrian Lameo.png (modified by above user to vandalize above article). Article may need a couple of watchers. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lance Robertson

The last paragraph of the article contains information that is unverified and libellious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.21.101 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I was unable to find anything via Google search which supported the assertions. If I had found a reliable source, I would have added it and kept the information, consistent with other positions I have taken on this board. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Now oversighted and the IP who added it has been blocked. January ^(talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rachael Lillis

Some editors (IPs and user accounts) have been repeatedly removing and readding the IMDB link, which is an acceptable link to add to various articles on voice actors, to the Rachael Lillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article at various times since late 2007. Today, one such removal can be found here, but I have swiftly reverted the IP who has removed it. Can someone please look into this external link issue? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, its not really a BLP issue, more minor vandalistic type unexplained removal, just keep it on your watchlist only 3 in 3 years is not so bad to revert. I had a look and one possible issue is that there is a nine year age difference between our article and the IMDB article and someone might not like that - just my thought. The article is basically uncited although we know who she is and that she has a bit of note, it would help if someone could find an independent report about her in at least one wiki RS. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I know it is not a BLP issue, but I wanted to bring this up. The IPs and user accounts who have removed it in the history section might be an IP hopper in my opinion. Today, another IP from the same user removed it yet again, but it was swiftly reverted. It would also help if someone could watchlist this page for such removals like these. By the way, would this reference help clarify the birthdate issue? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Thomas

Someone has vandalised this page on the paragraph regarding his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind. The comments are bitchy and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.157.99 (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. The vandalism has been reverted. (It had actually been done shortly before you finished posting here.) --Onorem♠Dil 20:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

jack whitver

Non famous person, vanity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.239.5 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Brandi Hawbaker

Brandi Hawbaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a deceased poker player has had some additions and deletions recently from two accounts, BrandiRose's Mom (talk · contribs) and Brandon gerson (talk · contribs), who claim to be the subject's mom and boyfriend, respectively. Although there's an obvious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest}} here, I'm just bringing it to this board for more attention because some of the edits deal with still-living people. More eyes would be welcomed there, as there's currently a dispute as to whether to include a quote from the boyfriend about the subject's mental state. [5] Dayewalker (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence including the quote appears to have been cut-and-pasted directly from the source, here: [6]. This isn't necessarily evidence that 'Brandon gerson' isn't who he thinks he is, but it looks like a possible case of plagiarism - I think the edit history might tell us more. It may be that the person who inserted this didn't understand the rules. Any comments?AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked, and this cut-and-paste seems to have been done when the article was first created, so 'Brandon gerson' isn't responsible for adding it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article could probably be AfD'd. She seems to only be notable for having committed suicide, sad as that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GLENN BECK

The Glenn Beck article is highly problematic. I added a section under notable controversies regarding Beck's statement that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is closer to 10% than 1%. While other editors objects, most of these objections came from people who also said racist things about muslims in their objection or expressed support for Glenn Beck. In my estimation no valid objection was raised, though valid support was. I therefore included the entry in the article and have since been involved in an Edit conflict with one of the editors. My impression is the page is being protected by an over vigilant user who is missapplying guidelines like consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is forum shopping.Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what forum shopping is. But I am not well acquainted with Wikipedia and trying to find the proper channel for my complaints. Please stop hounding me thank you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained it to you once just like I have already explained NPA to you. It also is not hounding if you are going to multiple noticeboards about a conflict we are involved in. So a quick breakdown for those not familiar:

• Editors disagree on if this is a "notable dispute".
• RECENTISM and NOTNEWS are also of concern.
• Editors have not come to consensus on how to word such a section (is a whole subsection really needed?) and how much should go in. Again, RECENTISM is a concern. NPOV is of course paramount.
• An alternative suggested was not focusing on this one incident but instead adding a paragraph into the "Views" section discussing his overall view on Muslims. I assume it is not favorable and it is fine with me if that is the case. However, this single incident may not deserve such prominence. The incident could of course be mentioned in the paragraph.
• Multiple editors disagree with DG. Their arguments are valid. He made the edit without consensus and it needs to be removed until something with a little more acceptance is done.
• On a more important note: Anyone wanting to check the article for neutrality would be awesome. This was done before and little was changed but if someone wants to list some Pproblems on the talk page (as asked multiple times) then great. Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not the ideal person to check an article on Glenn Beck for neutrality (I'm not exactly an enthusiast for his politics, amongst other factors), but having had a quick look I think it doesn't in general suffer from a particularly obvious POV problem in terms of content. It does however seem far too long, which in its way is a POV issue - it makes him out to be more significant to US politics than he is likely to be long term - this is 'recentism' too, of a sort, not to mention another example of the US-centric bias (unintended, largely) that the English-language Wikipedia suffers from. I think what the article needs most is a good pruning by someone uninvolved. If this is done, then maybe Beck's views on Moslems and terrorism might be seen in a more realistic light - as reflecting a view of a notable portion of US opinion, perhaps, but not that significant in the grand scheme of things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RECENTISM probably applies to sections throughout. If you see anything in particular feel free to point it out. Pruning from someone completely uninvolved (maybe even from outside of the US) would be interesting.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Cptnoono. Thanks for reporting me for something I didn't do. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

While I do think the article suffers from POV and consensus blocking (from people who either support or hate him), I would say that in the US, Beck is a major pundit. He is up there with a handful of people that deeply impact the political discourse. His program is highly rated, as is his radio show, and he has legions of fans who hang on what he says. The significance of the 10% statement, is that to this point, no prominent pundit or personality has said the number might be that high. Until recently there was a line in the US people didn't cross when it came to muslims, and he appears to be one of a handful leading the charge to question assumptions about the number of terrorists out there (in the past everyone used the caveat that the terrorists in the Muslim community are a small minority below 1%, even if they were being critical). I study terrorism for a living. I assure you, this is a big deal what he said. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dick Clark

Dick Clark was not born in 1889. He maybe getting old but not that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.35.148 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot seems to have spotted that one, but I suspect that New Years revellers are at work. I'll check it again tomorrow, while they are sleeping it off. If anyone is inclined, keep a watch on this, but it doesn't look too malicious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Hispanic and Latino Americans

The article text of List of Hispanic and Latino Americans includes the slightly strange paragraph:

Note: Only people who have biographies at Wikipedia should be included on this list. Reliable sources are optional (for now) when including people belonging to any of the above-listed groups, but are required for others. Thus, for an American who has Spanish ancestry, but was born (for example) in Germany or the Philippines, it should be shown that he or she self-identifies as a Hispanic or Latino American. No flags should accompany the names—the flags currently in the article are in process of removal. This list may be incomplete.

Presumably this note should be hidden from view so that it's only visible when editing the list, but it seems to be openly encouraging the flouting of BLP policy. Unsurprisingly, the list itself is pretty much unsourced. Any views on what should be done here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like the earlier lists. Probably the same thing should happen. John lilburne (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole list is kind of silly since Hispanic people make up such a large part of the US population. What's next a list of "German Germans"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is crap, and a direct violation of BLP policy which explicitly states that such lists require sourcing (actually, I think that all lists require sourcing anyway). In principle, it would be perfectly correct to simply delete any unsourced inclusion of a living person, but a better procedure might be to move them to the talk page, as was recently done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. Frankly, the list is so long that it is worthless anyway, to anyone but the ethnoboosters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved as was done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. John lilburne (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Jefferies

Christopher Jefferies has been arrested for the Murder of Joanna Yeates but not charged with any crime. Should Christopher Jefferies redirect to the murder article or to Chris Jefferies (an unrelated basketball player). Should there be a hatnote on Chris Jefferies linking to the Murder of Joanna Yeates article? This has been discussed briefly at Talk:Chris Jefferies and Talk:Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates#Chris Jefferies but I'd like further input. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his name should be used at all; the link should go to Chris Jefferies if it is retained at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is for Christopher Jefferies to be changed to a dab page between Chris Jefferies and Murder of Joanna Yeates. I agree that an article on the ex-teacher would fail WP:PERP, and I'm not proposing that one be created - my concern is for people who will be looking for the "Christopher Jefferies" who is currently in the news and not being able to find the right article. I also note there's been some low-level vandalism on the basketball player's article, so that _is_ where people are ending up. Tevildo (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should elevate his connection to the murder case to such a status. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nomos that it should redirect to the basketballer, without a hatnote. Shouldn't be associated with the murder if he wasn't even charged.--Misarxist 11:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- I think it's inappropriate even to name him in the article on the murder. He hasn't even been charged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support that sentiment, but he has been the subject of too much media coverage now for the genie to go back into the bottle. For now, the redirect should go to the basketball player, but that should be kept under review so that a decision here is not for keeps. It is probably already the case that the retired teacher Christopher Jeffries is more notable, regardless of what may or may not emerge as events unfold. --FormerIP (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mel Odom (artist)

Please review a situation on the "Mel Odom (artist)" page and advise.

A user, Muotinukke, is insistent that a reference that is in my opinion poorly sourced and unverifiable, contradicts a reference from The New York Times. Muotinukke not only continually reverts my edits regarding this, but has begun what I feel is harrassment on my User Talk page by issuing warning citations against me, when all I'm doing is reverting my edits to reflect The New York Times citation.

Please help.Mary Cross (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Traci Lords

• contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed

Many of the facts on her info box are unsourced, such as weight and measurements.

• Avoid victimization
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Considering she was underage when these films were made and considers herself a victim of child sexual exploitation, it would seem that the use of the 'adult film star' biographical template violates this 'conservative' principle. It also violates the 'POV' and 'no original research', since claiming that she is an 'adult film star' is a bit of a stretch.

Decora (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the first part of this, but Lords did make an adult movie as an adult. Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Measurments are sourced here http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=19201 . But I agree that the template is wrong. Especially, as the template uses the words "No. of adult films", which really ought to be "No. of pornographic films" in this case so as to not be misleading... Furthermore, this is a case of childhood sexual abuse and exploitation. There are thousands of Adult film stars. She is not notable for her single film as an 18 year old. She is notable for the exploitation case, and maybe for her B movie acting career... Tim.thelion (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the subject matter, I think this article needs to be much better sourced all round and some care to be taken over what is included. For example, it includes the unsourced information that Lords' underage movies are available on the internet, which might be taken as an advert for illegal porn. --FormerIP (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nenad Bach

"His band Vrijeme i Zemlja was formed while he was in college and had two Number 1 albums in Europe ("Vrijeme i Zemlja I" in 1980 and "Takvu te neću" in 1983)."

Does anybody ever heard about "European top chart"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.131.199 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Salim_Al-Awa

The page has a lot of wrong information about Mohamed Salim AL Awa, Al Awa spend his life fighting for the minority rights, Christians, Baha'is,.... the post cut some of his speech from the middle and miss you use, plus Al Awa was always against terrorist activities all his books, speech , interviews shows that. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7 http://www.el-awa.com/new/PlayVideo.php?VideoID=142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglil7 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed a variety of poorly sourced and unsourced negative statements about Mohammed Salim Al-Awa from the article. (Coincidentally, this has turned the article back into a very short stub.) I think allegations of this nature need, at the very least, a single source in English to support them. The one source in English that was cited as supposedly backing up the allegations, didn't even mention the guy's name.

Perhaps you could add some additional biographical information to the article, if you have reliable sources available (especially in English)?

It would also be good for the article to be consistent as to whether he is called Mohammed Salim Al-Awa or Mohammad Selim El-Awa. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed some OR bullshit about link to a recent bombing. But could someone check the arabic sources being used, according to google translate they vaguely check out, but needs someone who can actually read them.--Misarxist 13:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To Arabic speakers: In this case, DO NOT be afraid to edit the article! Even if you do not speak English well. We are VERY HAPPY to correct your English for you/help you improve. Tim.thelion (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope that means you'll be doing this, Tim. Meanwhile, I see the edit Misarxist has been replaced. I've removed it again to be on the safe said, and if it keeps being added I'll protect the page until it's sorted - contact me on my talk page if I miss something. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had to revert the material again, I've given the editor a 3RR warning (they are at 4RR now IIRC. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added the article to my watchlist :D Tim.thelion (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read them now, but there are is no lack of English sourcing on this subject: http://www.google.cz/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Copts+Awa Tim.thelion (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes

I'm tempted to take this straight to AFD, but thought some discussion here first might be helpful. The article seems to me just an excuse to record tabloid tittle-tattle and a, whole lot of "it has been reported" stuff. Read through it. Should this exist?

"Reporters from Holmes's hometown have wished that they would "just go away", but also stress that they know it will not happen" WTF?

"It was reported" and variants seem to breach WP:WEASEL

Thoughts. --Scott Mac 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's current form should be redirected to WP:WEASEL/Worst Example and any actual information should be copied into a stub titled Operah Winfrey Tom Cruise Couch Jump Excuse the humor... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the larger issue, the sentence you (Scott) quoted does not even conform to the (lousy) source. First, it's not reporterS plural, it's just one reporter. Second, it's not clear that the reporter is referring to Tom and Katie "going away" - it's such drivel it's not clear what she's saying at all, but my interpretation of it is that she's saying that she wishes the news about Tom and Katie would go away. Anyway, for those reasons - and for so many others - I'd remove the sentence and the (lousy) source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some day — after we've managed to destroy all life on Earth — some intelligent beings will happen upon this rock and discover a single Wikimedia server hard drive. It's troubling to ponder that this article may occupy the only sectors recoverable. Not that it would matter much to us at that point. But, perhaps it will be a warning to other galactic creatures that wish to avoid the fate that became us. jæs (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence you quoted as it wasn't what the source said. In terms of the article: there is a lot of verifiable information available, probably enough to write an article (rather than just a section in their respective articles). But a lot of this information has little notability, and comes from sources of dubious quality. You could try AfD (again) but I wouldn't be surprised if it survived. Trebor (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that earlier deletion debate was significantly disrupted by canvassing, which may or may not have ultimately impacted the outcome. (The closing administrator counted all of the delete !votes as one, since all were strategically "invited" to the discussion by the nominator. The closing administrator also indicated the content of the keep arguments was more persuasive. I can't say I agree, but I digress.) Perhaps another debate would be appropriate, although it would be difficult to predict what consensus would be at this point.

I generally think the "forking" of articles, especially biographies of living persons, in this way is potentially harmful. The more clicks you get away from the main article, the fewer eyes you generally have analyzing changes for wp:blp trouble. The reliably sourced content could easily — and more appropriately — be accommodated within the respective biographies. Just my 2^¢. jæs (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article is a complete loss: it reminded me to look up portmanteau (IRL, I recently heard that it was Lewis Carroll who created that term, and wanted to read more). I am now watching the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Add that a good portion of the links don't work, which is a good sign as to how much import the reliable source put on the article. What's the section on the kid doing in there, what value does that have? John lilburne (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we have an article on the Relationship of George Washington and Martha Washington? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD2 is the place for this. The previous one was in 2008, and I think our standards for material such as this have become more properly discriminating. It's useless to speculate whether thiswould be kept, when we can find out directly. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is problematic, and I've almost redirected it in the past to Tom Cruise. It's particularly unfortunate that the baby's birth certificate is discussed and linked to, in violation of BLP. There's a secondary source, but it's not clear what it's saying. In fact, I think I'll remove that section now if it's still there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the paragraphs with weasel words. They all reffed to this article [7] which is from a fairly small paper anyway, and they often generalised one example from said article into the collective group ("the media...", "gossip magazine editors..."). Trebor (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and redirected the page to the personal life section of Tom Cruise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for dealing with this. Any thoughts on Brangelina? It looks like Bennifer has already been redirected, though. jæs (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheila Voser Von Engelberg

Article: Sheila Voser Von Engelberg. Person is in reality a teacher. Article has no true information whatsoever. It's only bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.52.24 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone speaking German it it obvious that this is a hoax/attack BLP, I don't know why a request for speedy deletion was undone, but I'll add one again. --Six words (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, and I've asked for the image to also be deleted on Commons. Shame that the info in the article has spread elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Six words (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Toney Freeman again

There is a dispute at the Freeman article again. The dispute arrises about whether he actually tested positive for seroid use or merely allegedly did. I cannot really say. He posted a document on the matter, and did not explicitly deny the allegations. This, to me at least, is rather strong evidence that the allegations are true. But of course I cannot use my own reasoning to argue for well, my own reasoning.

However, unless there is some source where the allegations are challenged, I don't see the reason we should call them allegations. If everything written in a newspaper is mere allegation, then the article should be re-written "Toney Freeman was allegedly arrested, while allegedly being in Sweeden, and allegedly he was released without charges, and allegedly he tested positve...." Which, well, you get my point...

And if you still don't see where I'm going with this, look at the log of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AresXV with whom I'm disputing this. Tim.thelion (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegations against Toney Freeman

"Allegations" is the appropriate term for what is under discussion here. When police arrest/take someone in for questioning, criminal and civil law state that they have to declare a charge within 6-12 hours. In Freeman's case, this did not occur. The Swedish police did not have a prima facie case against Freeman, who had arrived in Sweden a few hours before. This is to say, there was no objective evidence on hand with which the local police could candidly charge Freeman for abusing drugs within their jurisdiction. Here is a paper written on the Swedish government's treatment of the war of drugs

They took him in because he was a bodybuilder and hoped to build a case against him either under questioning or via testing. Such practise is "profiling" and has been proven to achieve very little in law enforcement terms as "driving while black" and abuse of stop and search practises show. It is also prejudicial and therefore an infringement of civil rights. Added to this, the police did not permit him to have an attorney, a US representative, or make contact with his family. They also forced a urine sample without justifiable cause. All of these are human rights infringements (Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 Article 7, Article 9 parts 1-5, Article 14, 19, 20- this list need not be exhaustive) ). All of this made fellow competitor Jay Cutler cancel his visit to Sweden

Back to the allegations. Freeman was not charged and was released the same day. He committed no offences under Swedish law. Had he been (a) in possession of illegal drugs (b) tested positive for consumption of illegal (c) been therefore found guilty of the charges raised- suspicion of drug abuse, he would have been detained, brought before the courts and sentenced. The sentence would be determined by the seriousness of the drug abuse. If the police had confidence in their case, they would have detained Freeman under a charge and remanded him. This never happened.

Freeman is reported to have cooperated. He answered all questions and actually gave a urine sample to assist with enquiries. He also offered to have his physician consult with the police if they wished. They did not. Seeing that they had no case, the Sundsvall police turned to character assassination. They ran pictures on the news, biased reports and an aggressive statement effectively saying "BODYBUILDERS STAY AWAY FROM SWEDEN"

Finally, there is the "reasonable man's test". What has this matter got to do with the price of fish? How does violating the human rights of a US professional bodybuilder aid the Swedish government in their fight against steroids and drug abuse? Freeman, was not required to answer anything other than the charge put to him, so Tim.thelion's dalliance with academic notions of denial and admission being the same thing are out of the scope of this forum, and further evidence that the focus is more personal than on objective fact. Again, Tim, your notions are in clear violation of Article 14, part 2 and 3g.

God forbid the day when we are justifying actions like this against a group of people we don't identify with. AresXV (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) AresXV

Sue Monroe

Has Sue Monroe been imprisoned for murder? I can find no evidence online to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.115.169 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Obvious vandalism, already fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Material rev deleted as seriously libellous - and article semi-protected.--Scott Mac 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda328 at Tony Frangieh

Propaganda328 has been adding some troublesome material in the Tony Frangieh article, that I view as a violation of WP:BLP (Samir Geagea is a living person). I've had problems with this editor before, who has a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon (in a previous AN/I brought case against them, Propaganda328 described Lebanon's assassinated former Prime Minister as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality," which pretty much reflected the POV they were attempting to push in that article). In this case though, the target of their edits is a living person, which is why I'm here. The edit in question is this one, which I reverted as a BLP violation. The editor then re-added it, this time citing a YouTube video and some non-English web forum as sources. I've reverted the addition again, but given the past actions of this editor, I suspect they will keep pushing the point while failing to provide reliable sources. Would appreciate some intervention. ← George ^talk 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with George. Propaganda328 has some serious BLP issues. Should we block this user? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated POV pushing in article on Pradip Baijal

There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article, especially the "Controversies" section in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing. It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.

The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.

The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. Repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.

The original line read: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

it was changed to: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

the original line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?

One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.

Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.

What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? --Ashlonerider (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article in its original state is with phrases like "that are alleged to have" the main source for all this is peppered with phrases like "You could argue, be that as it may ... " and "You could further argue why .." IOW the source used is an opinion piece. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Clemmit

Date of birth was definitely 1962/1963- school records "Stokesley Comprehensive School". This has been repeatedly changed to 1966 or 1967 without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.119.3 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pradip Baijal

User:Ashlonerider is on a witch hunt and charater assasination of one of the most respected officers in the Indian Administrative Service. He has repeatedly added opinion pieces and non-factual inferences to push his agenda. He has made over 100 changes on Pradip Baijal's page, with only one agenda - to link him to the scam, and not give any benefit of doubt. All individuals who have worked with the officer talk about his impeccable integrity.