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.

Barry Chamish

I was forwarded an email complaint from someone, apparently Mr. Chamish, that we call him a "Holocaust Denier" when he isn't. I took one glance at the article and I am horrified by it. It is full of BLP violations. I am taking an extreme step right now and stubbing the article. I think every single claim in the article should be carefully checked and only re-inserted if it is sourced to a reliable source. As it stands now, the article is absolute crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I see crap articles, most of the time I rewrite them. I urge others to do the same. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but in BLP cases it is important to remember that our first obligation is to remove the crap. Building back up something better is important too, as a later step, but the first thing to do - immediately - is to remove the crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I agree, and said so here. However, I came into conflict with another editor who took it upon himself to blank Anita Bryant's page. It was not crap. It was mostly accurate. Mostly unsourced, too, but for the most part, accurate. I wrote Save Our Children, so I don't think I should be the person to filter material about Bryant's life. Instead, there it sits, waiting for someone to rewrite it. And waiting.... --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)What's the deal with WorldNetDaily cited in the Chamish article? Is it considered reliable for direct quotes but unreliable for everything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNetDaily has been held unreliable for fact assertions, at WP:RSN, but I think a direct quote from an interview passes muster under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source as long as it doesn't infringe the five criteria given there. Oh, and by the way, the WorldNetDaily ref is currently back in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it a source to be treated with caution. Confirmation in other sources would be generally useful I think. Speaking generally, using them as a source for a fact which is not found anywhere else *and* is not particularly controversial would seem ok in some cases. If the fact can be found in a better source, that source should be used instead or in addition. If the fact is controversial, I'd be very careful.

My primary beef with this article is that it did something absolutely outrageous: it accused the man of being a holocaust denier when the closest thing to a reliable source, and a source which plainly hates the guy, absolved him of that charge. This was in the article for more than a month.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may end up proposing the article for deletion for lack of notability. Even Daniel Pipes writing about him was in his blog. There seem to be a few news mentions, most of which treat him as a conspiracy theorist in passing, but it is not at all clear that he is notable. The only reason I'm not nominating right now is that I asked an Israeli friend and she said "Of course I've heard of him, he's a famous <unflattering term>". If he really is famous, perhaps there is enough to write a proper biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a history of abusive vandalism of this article by the Runtshit vandal. See in particular Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zuminous, though several other edits by Runtshit socks also make such edits. Many of the recent abusive edits share similar characteristics, and I strongly suspect that these too are Runtshit socks. I am looking through the page history, and making an SPI submission. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the accounts which made the abusive edits have now been confirmed by Checkuser as sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have opened an AfD on the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty School (Blue Hill, Maine)

Some attention to Liberty School (Blue Hill, Maine) would be appreciated. There are accusations about child sex abuse added, with two related sources establishing that there was some concern by some parents about a teacher, but I think not establishing any abuse at this school. This is out of my area of expertise, what is policy/practice for coverage of sex abuse accusations in connection with a school? --do ncr am 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One teacher later pled guilty to a misdemeanor sex charge - but the sources do not link the allegations and civil lawsuits to the decreased enrollment. Nor was the abuse linked directly to the school. If there were an article on the teacher (which is unlikely as he is BLP1E) then the allegations would be usable about him. Collect (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replying here and editing at the article and its Talk page, Talk:Liberty School (Blue Hill, Maine). The article is clearly better now regarding this, IMO, and there seems to be some useful discussion going on at the Talk. Thanks! --do ncr am 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stern

This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.124 (talk • contribs)

Glenn Beck

With the number of Glen Beck archived noticeboard (13) I think it would be prudent to request additional opinions, since I don't think there is any chance at a resolution otherwise. My issue is with the inclusion of there link Mormon in the infobox when referring to his religion. I have skipped the "Ask about the subject" step in "Resolving content disputes" since there is already a wp:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) about this subject and that was created by those you would "Ask about the subject" with, and that has been rejected by one side of the argument.

Ignoring the fact that the LDS Church has ask that they should not be called "Mormon", since they don't seem to follow that very well themselves, the reason "Mormon" should not be used are as follows:

Both the wp:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) say that "the term Latter-day Saint is more accurate than Mormon, and therefore preferred" and that although "Mormon" has been used to in reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "term that should not be used in Wikipedia articles in any case, since there are several churches that could be described as a "Mormon church". "Mormon " is incorrect when referring any Latter Day Saint sect, as a "religion". Mormon is used to refer to an individual who is "an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism" not the particular church he belongs to. If were not going to followed Naming conventions and MOS why have any of them?
The fact he has said "I am a Mormon" is irrelevant. This link is not a qutoe, and when he says "I am Mormon" he is saying he is "an adherent, practitioner..... of Mormonism". He is not referring to his specific sect in the Latter day saint movement. Since the infobox should provided the most accurate and concise information possible, it shouldn’t use "Mormon". For example, if a person calls himself a "Christian" and he attends a Southern Baptist church, you wouldn't put Christian, Southern Baptist.
The links is misleading. The Mormon link takes you to a page about all sects within Mormonism, not his sect in particular. Again, which Mormon is he? Is he IRLSD, CoC, TLC, FLDS,Strangite, etc., all of whom use "Mormon". "Mormon" is ambiguous. Using the same example, you wouldn't put Christian, Southern Baptist since the Southern Baptists is the "religion" this person is and there are hundreds of thousand of groups who call themselves "Christian" (inculding the Latter Day Saints)
Even if you argue that since "Mormon" is a type of religion, it is still not the proper way to refer to that religion per the Naming conventions and Manual of Style. It should then Read "Latter-day Saint, Church .... Saints".
The information is simple not needed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints links goes directly to his church page. There is no ambiguity at to witch Latter day sect he belongs to. Using Mormon opens too many questions.
Lastly the inclusion of "Mormon" is POV toward the LDS Church. They are not the only Mormons out there. What give them the right to either claim or disown the term? A number of sects use it --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Use a link to the specific sect, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). "Mormon" is a generic term that can mean membership in a variety of groups, and it's very unlikely that a member of the LDS Church would be comfortable being confused with Mormons that practice polygamy, for example. This was one of the reasons the guidelines in the naming conventions and LDS Manual of Style were agreed to by consensus, and they have been fairly widely and consistently implemented without trouble in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seem as if no one wants to come here, I have opened a request for Mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-03-03/Glenn Beck--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with Artest. Beck himself self identifies as "Mormon" and has said clearly "I'm Mormon" (a ref has been added to the article as well). Beck's DVD about his religious views is entitled "Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck". Not "Unlikely LDS'er" or "Unlikely Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" etc. A sort clip from this DVD can be seen ---> here where he states 0:42-0:46 "I'm not the model Mormon" & 0:55-0:58 "Well he's a Mormon, they must all be like that". Lastly, the naming convention you refer to is a suggestion dealing with generic usage, not with what someone self-identifies as. Moreover, the fact that there are several branches of Mormonism is discussed in the linked article to Mormon. Thus, I would "insist" on Mormon because (1) Beck himself does, (2) The vast majority (near unanimous) of the sources do per WP:Verify & WP:Undue. He calls himself a Mormon, 99% of the sources call him a Mormon, yet Wikipedia will exclusively label him a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints"(er)? = which does not even make grammatical sense when asked the question "What religion are you?" Moreover, to prevent confusion from readers who are not familiar with the intricacies of Mormon vernacular, they might not realize that Mormon and Latter Day Saint are the same thing in Beck’s situation (which is why both of them are included in the info box). For instance, they might incorrectly get the impression or think to themselves; oh Beck became Mormon and then converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – which are the same thing in the common parlance, and in Beck’s specific situation. Lastly, the insinuation of the objection almost seems to be that "Mormon" is somehow a pejorative term, that the LDS Church rejects, when it is not. For instance, the LDS church has been running their own "I’m a Mormon" TV ad campaign in 9 different cities in the U.S. ---> news clip. Additionally, the LDS Church’s runs a website at Mormon.org (see bottom of the page), while a newspaper owned by the LDS church is the Mormon Times. Of specific relevance to this article, on a basic google search Glenn Beck + Mormon = 313,000 results while Glenn Beck + Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints = only 50,700 results. When you couple this with the fact that Beck himself only refers to himself as "Mormon" (as nearly all the sources do), then that is what he should be identified as (with The LDS church in parenthesis to show his particular "sect" of Mormonism) - as yes some Mormons are not LDS, but all LDS are Mormons. Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox redirected by AfD

Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A bio page is needed, now, as a notable murder suspect being re-tried on appeal, also in title of new film "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy". A BLP ruling is needed to re-allow the AfD-deleted page. Some prior bio articles were redirected about Top-100 pageviewed Amanda Knox, a 20-year American exchange student held in Perugia, Italy, on multiple charges. The redirect was always to "Murder of Meredith Kercher" where the Knox bio was trimmed to avoid too much text, per WP:UNDUE. Opponents claim a bio page would be empty (trivial), compared to the murder trial page; however, I feel the bio-page would balance NPOV coverage, as describing a hard-working, studious girl, with no criminal background, as a major element of her unusual notability. The bio should include the views as a guitar-playing, honors student ("straight-A") from a Jesuit prep school, who works 3 jobs to become a foreign exchange student in Italy, then after 5 weeks, meets a new boyfriend at a classical music concert, calls housemate Meredith about their trendy Halloween costumes, then is accused of plot to kill housemate 2 days later, with her new boyfriend of 7 days. I can understand some people would think a hard-working, "huggy bookworm" would be a boring bio page, but that seems to be a major part of the controversy in her notability: an honors student works 3 jobs to move to Italy and is accused of a murder plot with a computer-engineering student she knew for 7 days. Her ordinary life, as raised in a normal family, with 2 sisters, and many college friends, as a rock-climbing soccer player, with guitar, is just too much WP:UNDUE text in other articles about her; hence, a bio page is the only method to ensure NPOV coverage, with space to allow numerous sources. Wikipedia should not be seen as a place where only gun-toting psychos, who police kept releasing, get bio pages. We need to overturn the prior AfD's. Thank you for considering this. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be article. World famous. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

world famous isn't covered in wiki policy. The AFD discussion makes interesting reading, nothing has changed and she is still a WP:one event, only notable in relation to the murder and unworthy of her own BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Off2riorob. Her notability is for a single event: her involvement in the Meredith Kercher murder, which has its own article. If more needs to be said about her, the biographical section about her in that article could be expanded, although in fact it has actually been slimmed-down. This might have been for many reasons, but for myself, I thought it was a good idea for the following reason. If a biography focused only on the positive things that have been said about her (hard-working, guitar-playing, etc), that would be a distortion of the full range of sources, some of which cover her sex life, drug-taking and quite negative images of her. However, I believe that if we included all this negative stuff, it is potentially prejudicial to the ongoing legal process. So do we write a rose coloured spectacled biography that is an idealised view, or do we reflect the balance of views in all the sources and risk prejudicing a legal process? My view is that we do neither and stick to a few basic facts about her background, then focus on the event which is the only notable thing about her: the murder. And the place for that is the existing murder article. Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. Prior AfDs are overturned at WP:DRV. And as previously advised, the best way to go about that is to build a userspace draft that addresses the concerns of the previous deletion discussion, and ask for recreation at the DRV. Suggest closing this. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - The same philosophical issues were discussed over more than 2 months at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 27#Amanda Knox -the recommendation to close also stems from a concern that at this stage a theoretical debate on that exact question here will lead to similar fruitless exchanges. A userspace draft at least provides concrete material to discuss. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your advisory statement. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Addendum for draft bio page - While the notion of taking time to create a draft bio page (as a userspace draft) might sound like "concrete material to discuss", instead, what happens here, in the real world, is (...wait for it...): a draft article gets hacked and slanted and POV-pushed and pre-censored and edit-warred and WP:IAR vandalized and trashed (get the idea?), so that, when the dust settles, people can argue, "See, look at the hollow draft article and how little it says, so there is no reason to have an empty bio page like this, at all".
Anyway, I agree to close here (there will be much more discussed at WP:DRV), and I have contacted the AfD-closing admin in preparation for WP:DRV. Knox has replied about the controversial film premiere, a 2nd event about her, and is charged with criminal slander for a May/June 2011 courtcase (3rd event). Hence, expect extensive talk at WP:DRV. -Wikid77 17:03, revised 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bio Page Necessary - A bio page for Amanda Knox is necessary, and that we don't have one is a gaping hole in Wikipedia. The BLP1E concerns are completely unfounded for several reasons: WP policy regarding a person who is notable because of one crime is that they generally shouldn't get their own article if both the following are true: 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual. Seeing as it is 3 years after the crime and Knox is still featured prominently in the news, Knox is the subject of countless articles, Knox is the subject a few books, and Knox is the subject of an recent TV movie (The Amanda Knox Story), the second prong of the test cannot be satisfied. Not only is she high profile, but she looks to remain high profile for the foreseeable future. (I would also argue that the first prong is not met, but that is unnecessary.) Furthermore, arguments for one article for the crime and each person involved in the crime don't hold water. First of all, in most cases where there is one article for the crime and for the people involved, there is only one or two perpetrators (less division of the biographical content of the article), many victims (meaning none of the victims are covered in a biographical way (therefore, less division of biographical content) and the perpetrators remained in the news for a short time. This case is far different. Furthermore, many crimes/perpetrators have BLP type articles despite being less notable than Knox or having committed crimes which are more easily pushed into a single article. For example, the Menendez brothers (the article spends time introducing their early life and education, and about 33% of the article deals with their lives after the trials/appeals), the DC sniper crimes (each of the individuals get their own biographies), and the Manson family. The Columbine killers got their own biographical article and there is a columbine massacre article. Ditto for the Virgina Tech shooting guy. Ditto for the Amish school killer. Ditto for Karesh. The Winnendon and Jokela shootings articles have more biographical information than they do information about the crimes. We have a case here were common sense, WP policy, and past practice all dictate that Knox should have her own article

While I agree with Wikid77 on the necessity of a Knox article, his proposal doesn't look completely NPOV or complete. I would suggest that the article look something like this:

I would imagine that an Amanda Knox article would be similar to the biographies which currently exist about her in books and tv shows/movies. While I am just learning about her now, I would guess the article would go something like this:

Lede

Early Life, education, etc.

Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the first half of he MoMK article.

Appeals and other Court Cases. Self explanatory.

Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. Perhaps there would be different Italy, UK, US, and RoW sections

Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.

Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.

For people who argue that we should create an article first and then ask for a new page, that seems like a waste of time unless there is some indication that people will actually let a Knox article exist. Currently it seems like people have such a personal hatred for Knox that they would ignore WP policies to ensure that a "sociopathic killer" does not get more prominent coverage on Wikipedia than an innocent victim, despite the fact that the news continues to cover Knox at least 10 times more than Kercher (and probably closer to 100 times more). We should not be arguing the merit of the individuals, but the correct application of WP policy and how WP can best serve its readers. "Amanda Knox" gets far more page views than Guede, Kercher, Solecito and anyone else involved in the murder combined. That readers are deprived of a biographical article about Knox is a failure of WP.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would Support a bio page for Amanda Knox. She has with the latest film about her becomed notable on her own.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi

There is a dispute on whether or not information about the possible existence of a wife of this individual should be included in the article. Modi says that he is a bachelor but two reports, one, an opinion editorial on the online site of The Hindu, a reliable Indian newspaper, that states he was married and is now separated [1], and a second on 'open the magazine' which says that a woman claims to be the wife of Mr. Modi[2]. To me, this appears to be a marginally plausible claim that, if included, would primarily be there for titillation (Modi is a controversial Indian politician) and so is best avoided in an otherwise serious blp. User:Ashlonerider, on the other hand, is arguing that it would be incorrect to drop all references to him having a wife especially when journalists have proved the existence of the said individual with marriage records to back up those claims (though neither of the two sources provided back up their claims with marriage records). Other eyes on this dispute are welcome. --rgpk (comment) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- yes - I am not seeing any documentation to back up this claim. The hinduonnet.com comment is from 2003 so there has been plenty of time for this to get confirmed, it really depends on the amount of coverage in WP:RS reports this has got and continued to have, if these two are all the reliable coverage and one is from 2003 and the narendra-modi-s-wife http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/i-am-narendra-modi-s-wife a titillating investigative type journalism from a new publication that it not widely used on this wiki. I am unsure it is of the quality we should be using for such controversial claims especially when the subject denies them, then without more reliable coverage I would say for the very limited value it has in regards to his notability it's better out than in. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first rgpk's contention was that hinduonnet and OPEN magazine are not reliable sources. Now it has shifted to questioning whether it is "enough" evidence.

That is incorrect. My first talk page comment on this here was largely about blp issues and, as the edit summary shows, my first concerns were blp related. --rgpk (comment) 15:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is from 2003. There has also been substantial coverage on the issue during the Gujarat Elections by various media houses. I dont think it is anybody's place to say whether the article is "sensationalised" or not.

Now that there has been an attempt to edit out these references, i would be getting other media references. In the meantime, i would request a block on the article to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest bringing these further sources to the table here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

robert downey jr

early life section has been edited to include offensive remarks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.2.214 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vandalism, reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Maas

The last line of my biography is defamatory. The process that rendered the decision of an ethics committee has been disbanded as unfair. I have asked twice that the line be removed, and it was both times. Yet now it is back again! Someone or some group of individuals obviously has a personal vendetta. Please see that this line is removed asap as I consider it libelous and injurious.

Many thanks, James Maas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbm1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily removed the sentence in question, based on there apparently being a former OTRS ticket regarding this, accompanied by the statement that contentious statements of this nature require more than one reliable source.

Could you point us to a reference (e.g. newspaper, news website etc) which discusses the subsequent disbandment of the ethics committee finding?

Alternatively someone with OTRS access may wish to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have OTRS access, but there are a lot of sources discussing this other than just the one, so the claim that this is an issue of contentious claims requiring more sources isn't relevant. Other sources include this article this article(discusses Maas although not the main focus). There is also this press release by the group defending Maas. I can't find any sources backing up the claim that the ethics committee was in any way disbanded as being unfair. If Maas has a source for that, he should supply it, in which case the most reasonable thing to do is to include all the details, including the disbandment. But without that, it seems like there are more than enough sources to justify including this content. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Ducey

Resolved

This is in regards to a technical issue with the article and not the content so this may not be the correct place to report it but it is the most likely place I could find. Please kindly forward the report the correct place.

It seems that the structure of the article may be corrupted in such a way that it is not possible to edit the text above section 2

An edit made in the first section does not appear in the live article. You can see the diff here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ducey&action=historysubmit&diff=416859832&oldid=413663553

Thanks to all the Wikipedia staff and contributors

-- Michael Mt1955 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to be this edit which was causing the problem, I believe I've fixed it. January (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants

This would appear quite straightforward to me. The lead of this article reads "Disputed supercentenarian claimants are people who have been claimed to be over 110 but whose age claims have been controverted by reliable sources such as census research and/or birth/death records". Thus anyone living in the article is being accused of lying about their age. There are multiple uses of the Worlds Oldest People Yahoo Group. This seems to be a quite straightforward misuse of a self-published source for claims about living people? O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Yahoo group is prima facie not a WP:RS. Individual messages might mention relevant RS, but if so they should be cited directly. It's quite amazing that the list defines itself as "cases are deemed to be invalidated by an authority such as ... or World's Oldest People." Who reckons a Yahoo group is an "authority"?? I can't see any justification for that on the talk page (though I skimmed it quickly and might have missed some discussion). Remove immediately per BLP anything relying on that source, and then discuss how to proceed in terms of trying to find RS. (Other sources are probably OK, though arguably both the claimed age [including exactly who claimed it] and the actual age should be sourced, and I'm not sure they all are.) Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. --Rob (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Galliano

The page has been defaced with a lot of references to Galliano's homosexuality, ironically in a fashion that suggests the perpetrator is as predjudiced as the designer. They should probably be removed, and perhaps the bio should be locked for a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.119.130 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected for two weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sagnik

Dear all,

I am an old contributor for wikicommons and recently for wikibooks and wikimedia. I am wondering about the "relevancy and accuracy" of this bibliography. Is it wikipedia the proper platform for anyone to advertise its own biography on?

The content in this page for "Roy Sagnik bibliography" is more "facebook-profile-like" but doesnt seem to have any sort of public usefulness or relevancy. I would be concerned that this person is just using wikipedia platform for advertising himself— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla.antonini (talk • contribs)

At a quick glance, he seems to have third party coverage in media like Economic Times and Hindu that would probably be sufficient to establish notability. The article could use some editing for neutrality, elimination of peacock words and the like. I added some appropriate tags to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, its very promotional and I did a bit of work on one of them, still needs the promotional taking out though and a list of externals looking at to see what they are supposed to be citing - I also note - such is the promotional aspect of the situation that he is so good, like New York, they named him twice and he has two articles.... Theme from New York, New York

- Roy Sagnik - I did a little work on this one

- Sagnik Roy
- note - I blanked and redirected Sagnik Roy and its talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Bjorgen

URGENT! The article about Marit Bjorgen, the section “Asthma medications and doping controversy ” is fabricated in order to harm Marit Bjorgen. The article in Wikipedia is used as reference in a smear campain in Sweden towards Bjorgen. All content and writing about the substance SALBUTAMOL need to be erased as there is no evidence whatsoever in the references or elsewhere that Bjorgen has ever used it. Swedish Wikipedia has had the same problem and corrected the content today. Please the section as a whole instantly. If the section is needed at all it needs to be rewritten from zero. (I have no personal relation whatsoever with Marit Bjorgen, I am not even Norwegian but Swedish, but was fooled myself by the smear campain's reference to Wikipedia and I find this totally unacceptable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljg49 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be multiple sources for the information - are they inaccurate? If nothing says the name, then the specific drug should be removed and just generic references to an asthma medication used. The section itself could probably use some rewording - "This is on the doping list" is probably not needed, or at least in that manner, plus some other phrasing. Ravensfire (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the section. None of the references supported any of the propositions: that she uses Salbutamol, or that her coach said it improved her performance, etc. Nor could I find a reliable source that says she uses this drug. She does use an unspecified asthma med, as reported here, and a Polish competitor acccused her of getting an advantage from it. I'll wait for consensus on whether to re-include that in the article in some form. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt she uses Symbicort. She admits this here self. Source Swedish National Television http://svt.se/2.21247/1.2325124/bjorgen_avslojar_preparat_for_svt and Norwegian National Televison http://www.nrk.no/sport/langrenn/1.7505862 . The substance in Symbicort that is prohibited is formoterol . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiung (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - the Swedish wiki BLP for Bjorgen translated via google. - It looks to me like a couple of lines would be sufficient to cover the mini controversy, the claims and counter claims about the drugs benefits are coatracking and undue, perhaps an addition similar to the Swedish content - basically as I understand it, she is allowed special dispensation use this drug and one of her competitors doesn't like it and has accused her of doping but its not - she is allowed to use the drug. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rob's evaluation but would add there also seems to be an issue of whether it is correct she ever used Salbutamol as opposed to a different asthma drug. The Salbutamol allegation should not be added to the article unless someone can find a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.nrk.no/sport/langrenn/1.7505862 she told Swedish (!) TV that she has a dispensation for Symbicort. I'm Norwegian, so I don't want to edit this article at this time. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google check seems to confirm that Symbicort and Salbutemol are different drugs. Various IP's and at least one user account keep re-adding the content about Salbutemol, sourced to a dead link, a blog and a couple articles which don't mention the drug. Other eyes on this would be greatly appreciated. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection? The world championship is an ongoing event (ends on Sunday). --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just when things quieted down, user Jenna6752 (account created yesterday) is re-inserting the suspect content.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that she has said that she has a medical prescription to use Symbicort and has received a dispensation to use it. Her competitor Justyna Kowalczyk claims she is using doping and Polish and Swedish fans are really angry. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have no objection to the insertion of a reliably sourced statement about Symbicort, Kowalczyk, etc. However, the content the various IP's and possible socks have been adding is always the same, sourced to blogs, dead links and sources which don't support the statements about her use of the drug or its effects on performance. I haven't done this myself because all of the English language sources I have seen so far are not clearly reliable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A real user with some edit history has now added an acceptably slimmed down and apparently reliably sourced version. In the meantime, I also applied for page protection given the history of contentious, unsourced editing of the page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned users might want to keep an eye on Justyna Kowalczyk where similar claims are made.Sjö (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Factory Music

Hello... I am completely Wikipedia illiterate! I need someone-anyone's help editing the page for Orange Factory Music. Several flags were placed on the account and I have no clue how to contribute to the article to verify and validate the information. These guys have made big contributions to pop music and should be noted for it. Any help is great appreciated. Please check out their wiki page (Orange Factory Music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweedz (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lacks reliable third party sources independent of the subject, establishing notability. It also contains some language such as "Internationally acclaimed" which appears to be what we call "weasel words", and generally reads like a marketing brochure. The WP:MUSIC standard may give you some ideas for material worth adding. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

susan hiller

Resolved

– Article fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Ann Gallagher, Tate curator and editor of Susan Hiller's recent Tate catalogue (also author). My name has been misspelt as Anne Gallagher. Please correct. one e makes a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.148.72 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it because I found lots of places on the Tate website that say "Ann". However, ironically, the first reference I found says "Anne". See here. You might want to get it fixed. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange is a content fork biased towards one side thus violates WP:UNDUE. A similar article was deleted a while ago for the same reason.

The Assange article has had numerous BLP problems in recent months and currently has 291 watchers, while this new article has less than 30 and the talk page has generated numerous concerns. The article is currently up for AfD. I'm not a BLP expert, so would like some input from the regulars here. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please get some extra eyes on this article. The BLP violations are growing by the hour. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This needs some new eyes on it - I've become somewhat disillusioned with the endless attempts by some contributors to spin the Assange article, and this one. Far to many edits seem more appropriate for a courtroom than for Wikipedia, with endless disputes about the meaning and implications of each and every word. I don't think that 'trial by talkpage' is really appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Walters

This is an article about a journalist who about a year ago got in hot water over a report by him aired on Sydney television news. The report in question was widely criticised, as any Google News search will show. I recently rewrote the section in his article about this report, and another user has deleted it, and blanked the talk page, claiming 'libel. The section was thoroughly referenced. I have not reverted, in the interests of not starting an edit war. I would appreciate it if someone else could look into this and consider the appropriate resolution. - Mark 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is almost never acceptable, unless they are pure vandalism or libel. He makes the latter assertion but if the material under discussion was reliably sourced he should not have blanked it. I looked at the edit history and believe that the David Campbell section was given undue weight but should survive in the article if edited to a couple of neutral sentences. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk page and re-added a much shorter section on David Campbell. I also posted a warning on the user's Talk page, though I see he has deleted several similar warnings from others. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the trim, the expansion of that section was imo totally undue. I also created an archive on the talkpage and moved the historic stuff there. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph about the coverage, mostly about Walters in David Campbell's article. I would question the relevance there, I think in that article it's sufficient to cover just the incident itself rather than controversy surrounding the coverage. There's no suggestion that Campbell himself got involved in the debate. January (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Adigalar

Request help. Bangaru Adigalar is quickly reverted each time there is an edit for a while now, first by an IP, now by User talk:Boldandstrong. I stopped editing February 18th, because of this. Another editor's work is also now being reverted, by the same user.

I had written on the article talk page, explaining my edits, with no response. I've now written on the users talk page, including a link to the page on biographies of living people. I've also contacted the recent editor who's work has also been reverted.

BoldandStrong seems to feel that the information from Bangaru's websites are sufficient to source all the things they are saying. I'm not sure where to go from here. I think that the Feb 18 version of the page, which was my last edit, is a solid start, with a secondary source, that still includes information on how devotees consider Bangaru Adidalar, without asserting divinity wholesale. I hope we can get some help! Nihola (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I did indeed write to User talk:Boldandstrong requesting that they stop simply reverting edits by others, and to try to work with the other editors. However, they have today removed what I wrote, during a 'minor' edit. Nihola (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gunasegaran Rajasundram

Resolved

– per User:Nil Einne - as the article is not a BLP and futher discussion for article improvement in general can occur on Talk:Death in custody of Gunasegaran Rajasundram

I've done a partial cleanup of Gunasegaran Rajasundram, but I have to logoff now. Can anyone else take a peak, as I'd rather not have it left like this for hours. But I think there is probably too much sourcing for a G10 deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I moved it as he is a one event not otherwise notable to Death in custody of Gunasegaran Rajasundram and added a talkpage template and no-indexed the talkpage - if an experienced editor is informed in Malaysian issues, imo it needs additional editorial investigation, Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the move, I'm not sure if this is really the right desk for further discussion anyway. The person died about 2.5 years ago and although a few living people are named not really in any way that raises BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kučan

full link to the article in question = http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Ku%C4%8Dan troublesome material: a scan of person's signature in the "info box" in the abovementioned article.

On behalf of my father, Milan Kučan who is a living person with a certain status in Slovenia (first and long time president of the Republic of Slovenia), I kindly ask you to remove a scan of his signature.

A scan of a famous living person signature is troublesome material, even if originally with a positive purpose, since it is prone to be abused, especially if made available in an article on a person in a format that can easily be re-used. Besides being troublesome, I don't think that a scanned signature adds any true value to the article.

The scan of my father's signature only appears in the Slovenian language version of the article and I could try to suggest its removal, but according to one of the Slovenian Wikipedians, to whom I have just talked, the scan would probably reappear and a fruitless debate might start over this. He suggested I turn to you, reporting the problem on this noticeboard.

I hope you can understand the situation and kindly ask for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Špela Kučan, on behalf of Milan Kučan, former president of the Republic of Slovenia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmera (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- this is the en-wikipedia - we are not involved in that article you need to request there on the talkpage, the signature is not currently published via our article - and as I can see is also not published via WP:Commons - the hosting is copyrighted and currently only hosted at the Slovenia wiki here - so as we have no authority over the situation at that wikipedia you need to ask them there. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cmera (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC): Thank you, I'll contact the locals then ...[reply]

Shahid Balwa

This needs a good cleanup, or I'd like a second opinion on whether this should be deleted G10 as an attack page. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is hard to evaluate. The man is certainly notable, and the assertions about his arrest and being the subject of investigation are all supported by the sources such as India Today and the Pune Mirror. They look like standard newspaper sites written in English in usual journalistic language, not like blogs or ideological attack sites, but its hard for someone not from or otherwise familiar with the subcontinent to evaluate them further. Might be worth posting a request at the Indian Wikipedian noticeboard asking for advice. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Heine

Can someone please check this article for balance and sourcing? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a little, moved some stuff out of the lede, added some sources, and moved the Israel-related stuff to its own section. Let me know what you think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your edits improved the article, I have also made a few edits, but the BLP can still use some improvement as regards the citations and promo lists of externals to front pages with no mention of the subject - jonny has appeared on a and b and c and d and e and f and g - with front page links to nothing about the subject and there are a bunch of 404 deadlinks also, detail is on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Correa

I view all the references to "limpiacoches" (literally translated as "car-washer") as derogatory at worst and improper for a biography article at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.243.106 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these. That was some pretty effective vandalism, taking advantage of the limitations of non-Spanish-speakers. If it can be established who was responsible for this, a long block is in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in this diff on jan 29 by a userUser talk:131.178.112.229 in his first addition and so far only addition and he had a redlink talkpage, no welcome template. He was from Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. Rafael Correa is President of Equador and the BLP gets vandalized quite often and could use a few more active watchers. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ck1 Writer

It seems that some unknown IP is trying to introduce the artist as a vandal, even the deceased photographer , on their on biography page. I was working on completing the page, when i was on a trip. some IP edited the page multiple of times and I can feel this may go to result to an edit-war, I can easily edit the page and revert it to the original, I will try my best to put the right information that will not lead to abusive or offensive material... please notice this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ck1_Writer&direction=next&oldid=411005616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soso freak (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

roberto sanchez ramos

Pursuant to COI guidelines, I'm hereby stating that I edited my own entry to eliminate a misleading and unfair statement about my mother, which was improperly and maliciously inserted by someone with strictly-political motivations. First, the statement about my mother is marginal, at best. First, it is not about me; second, in such a short article, its inclusion makes it seem as though it's an "important" matter, which it decidedly never was. Third, the alleged "question" referred to my mother's pension, and it was raised at a time when I became subject to public criticism by members of the political party of a former governor whom the Department of Justice (under my watch)criminally charged for making false statements to the government in his attempt, while being governor, to secure for himself a higher pension than he deserved. In fact, PR's Retirement Administration had adjusted the former governor's pension, having concluded that his statements had indeed been false, and the former governor never appealed that decision. The "question" raised about my mother's pension was whether she had relied on a "sworn statement" to get credit for certain years of public service; however, the facts are that (i) my mother never relied on any "sworn statements"; (ii) the Retirement Agency never raised any questions about the factual information submitted by my mother regarding her prior public service reported for the purposes of computing her pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivirj (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your conflict, I don't think there was anything wrong with your removal of unsourced, possibly libelous information about yourself. However, you did more than that, you added some facts at the same time. Even though they weren't controversial, for those kinds of changes, I suggest you declare your conflict and raise any changes you wish made on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your report, I have left you a list of handy helpful links on your talkpage. Please report here any similar problems and we will deal with them for you, your article is for the English wikipedia of minor note and has few active watchers. I and Bbb23 have added it to our watch lists and if the content is replaced we will request additional protection of the biography. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Gonzalez

I appreciate the changes made by David Able and thank you for your time and attention. I ask that you read the following and made additional corrections and the issue should be resolved completely.

"Gonzalez received his seventh technical of the season with 11 minutes to go.[3] The next day, Gonzalez was fired. School officials stated that despite the team's on-court improvement, he was not a good representative for Seton Hall. Seton hall University president Monsignor Robert Sheeran said the events of the previous night were "a crystallization of all that was really wrong" with the program under Gonzalez' watch."[4] o David Able. thank you, the changes are better, but some of the issues still exist. this last sentence should be removed because it is not true and it implies that everything under Bobby Gonzalez's watch was "wrong" which is an absolute falsehood. bobby received a 5 year extension in October of 2009 with a statement from the school to the public that they were pleased and happy with the direction the program was heading. Obviously this should tell you that the statement by Monsignor is dubious at best. Within the next few months after that extension, an administrator in the program by the name of Pat Hobbs got Bobby fired to cover-up some decisions that he made on his own. To cover up his wrongdoing, and for interests of self preservation, he put blame on Bobby. this all had to do with inner politics and nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby's biography. He did nothing wrong and does not deserve to have all of his success trashed in a few sentences in a living biography. The NIT game at the end of his career was one game in over 400 division one games Bobby coached. Does that seem fair to you? The last sentence re: NIT game and technical fouls was just a smokescreen for PR purposes. It is not factual biographical material. During the course of a basketball season, players do get chippy and get thrown out and coaches do get technicals. Part of the game and not anything to do with a biography. If you read the biographies of other coaches you don't see this kind of thing written. It's as though Bobby were singled out by someone deliberately out to demean. This is important as background : The program actually improved under Gonzalez' watch, rose in the standings every year and rose in the win column every year. His record tells the truth. Seton Hall also fired the women's coach, the track coach, the AD and Sheeran stepped down. And Hobbs is about to step down. Bobby got railroaded and the people behind it, a couple of reporters with an agenda, set out to ruin him. they've also used Wikipedia to this aim. All that you have on that is opinion, and poor opinion at that. It is the subject of a legal issue behind the scenes as are the NYT stories by Pete Thamel whose credibility is a serious question. I understand there are likely privacy concerns but we would like to trace the origin of the Wikipedia article that ended up being so disparaging. The only reference to the firing should be this: that the school decided to go in a different direction due to longstanding disagreements between the coach and the athletic director. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).As for the mall incident: that is being expunged and therefore should not be written anywhere. I can contribute biographical material that you should have from his actual biography. I would ask you to add,Gonzalez, came to Seton Hall after a tremendous seven year run as the head coach of Manhattan college. He led the Jaspers to four 20 win seasons and two NCAA Tournaments. His team won the MAAC regular season championship three times and a tournament title twice. Gonzalez received numerous accolades, being named NABC District 2, USBWA and NYBCA Division One Coach of the Year as well as Metropolitan Coach of the Year two years running. Gonzalez served as an assistant coach for the Gold Medal winning 22 and under United States team of the World University Games held in Turkey in 2005.Gonzalez served as a member of the NCAA ethics Committee and as a television and radio analyst for the NCAA Tournament and NBA Draft. We are very anxious to have this corrected. Thank you so much for your time. Cannot figure out how to sign this. Linda Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Gonzalez" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- this just looks like a wall of unfathomable text. Please state any specific WP:BLP violations, if it is a content issue you would be better editing the article yourself or discussing on the article talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As regards "tracing the origin of the wikipedia article", if you're really serious then the article history is about as close as you will get. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Trousdale

This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.49.150 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read WP:BOLD and if you are interested in this topic and person consider doing it yourself, I have left you a list of useful internal links to assist you in that, if there are specific WP:BLP violations please focus on them in detail and users will address that but if you are looking for article improvement you might be better attempting it yourself. If you consider the person to be not notable , see WP:PROD and WP:AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy St. Louis

Someone keeps making libelous remarks about Mr. St. Louis' married life. I, and others, have removed the offensive comments several times, but this same (apparently) person revokes the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.139.47 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not in the article right now. I will add it to my watchlist. If the IP keeps reverting, it may be worth listing it at WP:articles for protection as semi-protection would ban any IP editing. Also, the guy does not seem very notable to me. We don't usually keep bios of reporters who just do their jobs, unless they become newsworthy in some other way. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was reverting even as I posted this. I placed a welcome/warning on his user talk page. If he keeps this up, he will have soon committed a three revert rule violation so we can apply for that remedy as well. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by User:Cirt for 3 months. (Article is badly lacking sources, only one of the citations actually mentions him.) January (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some third party coverage, interviews with him etc. so decided a PROD was not warranted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger

Resolved

– Picture deleted on WP:Commons 02:22, 7 March 2011 User:Zscout370 deleted " (WP:Copyright violation)

A user is attempting to insert a photo which is allegedly of Sanger at age 11 but given this response when I asked on the users talk page, I suspect this is being done to disparage Sanger. Request admin attention to this, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virender Carro

Resolved

– new users statement about himself

I am Virender Carro belongs to Village Jheel Teshil Narwana in Distt. Jind Haryana . My father is a farmer & My mother is house wife. All land of our village is agriculture land. At least I am working in Gurgaon in a manufacturing Unit.

Our village is situated 3 k.M stone from N.H.71 & 1 K.M Stone Delhi- Jakhal Railway Crossing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virender Carro (talk • contribs) 11:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that, if I was you I would not post personal details about yourself on wikipedia without good reason. I have left you a menu of helpful links to help you enjoy your editing here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Farrugia

Resolved

Ashley Farrugia has developed substantial businesses in the Automotive, Auto LPG, Franchising and Internet industries. He established LPGAS1 Franchising 2005 which was one of the largest Vehicle LPG converting companies in Australia. He now Operates various successful online Businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.118.125 (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is not the noticeboard to request article creation, you could try Wikipedia:Requested articles or WP:Article creation - I have left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire Incident

Paulioetc and an IP sock are continuing to edit multiple articles, to add a claim that a British Forward Air Controllerd (FAC) faced manslaughter charges as a result of a friendly fire incident in Afghanisation. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [3]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [4].

Articles involved: Friendly fire, Royal Anglian Regiment, List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims

SPI Check: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc‎

As the FAC is still alive, this appears to be a BLP violation to me. I have deliberately avoided naming the individual, though his name is in the public domain and a simple google search will find it. Note: Talk:Friendly fire and Talk:List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims for attempts to engage the guy in talk, he routinely ignores and deletes any warning template. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Paulioetc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- User:67.164.105.159 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aruna Shanbaug

This article is insensitive and offensive in the way it describes a victim who has been in a coma for 37 years. Especially, the line "That "muscle in her mouth" with which she flayed a subordinate for not doing his job no longer receives any signals from her brain" though taken from an article in an obscure magazine is of extremely poor taste and should be unacceptable for international readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.1.26 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read, even without the statement quoted above. At the very least it should be completely rewritten from scratch, and deletion should probably be considered as well. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Crotalus. Largely unsourced, few footnotes. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. wp:ONEVENT would seem to apply. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have renamed this article 1973 attempted murder and robbery of Aruna Shanbaug and trimmed some content and imo its better, although the attack was a one event - coverage and additions have continued up to the present day. I think its a notable case, especially in Bombay - for continued notability the BBC reported on the case as recently as Dec 2009, thirty six years after the incident. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India court admits plea to end life of rape victim - The BBC - 17 December 2009 -

If someone wants to suggest it, there maybe a case to merge to this recently created article that seems to be primarily about her

Euthanasia in India - Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exonerated landlord in Murder of Joanna Yeates

The landlord was a suspect in the murder and has now been cleared. I think this means we should not discuss him at all. An earlier version contains extensive recounting of his arrest etc. The whole episode has been damaging for Jeffries, in ways readily apparent in the (now deleted) text -- and I think it is highly plausible that having the whole thing spelled out in Wikipedia only exacerbates it. I really believe it would be appropriate for the article to not mention him at all (and have removed the material in question).

There is a question of whether we can write about him per WP:NPF. NPF says, include material relevant to someone's notability. However: if someone is notable, then they get their own article; if Jeffries is not notable enough for his own article, then he's not notable. NPF is about whether relatively unknown people should have their own article, and "include only material relevant to their notability" does not amount to license to write about non-notable people. Jeffries is not notable, and we shouldn't be writing about him.

Discussion under way here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the information doesnt need to be restored but it certainly needs a mention in the article. Chris Jeffries is wether we like it or not part of this Joanna Yeates story. To not mentioning him at all is to basically censor an article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity has made a fundamental misinterpretation of WP:NPF. It certainly does not say that someone who is not notable enough for a biography must not be mentioned in any other article. For an example of how such a rule would wreak havoc and make articles incomprehensible, think of Gillian Duffy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes after following the discussion both here and on the articles talk page I would Support a full restoring of the material removed about Chris Jeffries.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of this person in the article imo was excessive and we should seek consensus for a trimmed down addition. This discussion is now going on at two locations which is never a good thing. We should perhaps continue in only one? Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed. Any further comments on this particular discussion, please make them on the articles Talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala (herbalist)

I am the subject of the page Kamala (herbalist). I did not write this page. There are many bits of erroneous information, as well as inaccurate information there. The worst part is the title of the page. I do not advertise myself as an herbalist, as I stopped selling any herbs for internal consumption in January of 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalaDana (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What title is more correct Kamala (aromatherapist) - and what content is erroneous and innacurate? If the article is not improved with additional external independent reports there may well be a WP:NOTABLE issue as I am not seeing anything that presently really shouts wiki notable to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

I am convinced editor Parishan has removed a huge part of this article for political reasons (including the biography of winner Vladimir Arzumanyan). The part of the article removed are about Azerbaijan and Armenia while Parishan is mostly Pro-Azerbaijan he also removed the content I believe because it wasnt something that he personally liked. Well sourced article part just look here, I tried to convince the user Parishan that a third party opinion was needed but it only resulted in my being met with patronising and hostile comments from parishan.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The winner seems to have their own article (stub) here - Vladimir Arzumanyan - it is very difficult to evaluate these non English externals. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am aware of that. I only brought that up to justify this articles inclusion in this noticeboard. You see my reasons below for why this information should be restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8th Junior Eurovision Contest (2010)

On November 21, 2010, Vladimir Arzumanyan from Nagorno-Karabakh won the first place for Armenia in the 8th Junior Eurovision Song Contest held in Minsk. According to Armenian news reports, Azerbaijani media interrupted the broadcast of the event as it became apparent that Armenia had won.

-http://news.am/eng/news/38887.html

- http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/culture/news/57089/Azerbaijan_does_not_endure_victory_of_Vladimir_Arzumanyan_at_2010_Junior_Eurovision

However Tahir Mammadov, representative of Azerbaijan's public broadcaster ITV, stated that due to Azerbaijan not participating in the contest, the channel did not broadcast the event altogether.

- http://www.eurovision.org.ru/news/pobeda_armenii_na_evrovidenii_v_minske_sprovocirovala_skandal_v_internete/2010-11-22-5443

- http://www.hafta-ichi.com/v4/2010/11/23/online=277

Yeah but obviously many Armenian user with knowledge about the language added these sources. And as I understand it non-english sources atleast weighs higher than no sources at all. We have to assume good faith for these sources until someone find english sourcing contradicting this information. Also other Azeri users with knowledge of the Armenian language havent removed the information. If you see my point. I suggest it be restored. Cheers;)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks harmless enough to me, and has a little rebuttal. Perhaps another local speaker can weigh in with an interpretation as regards notability. I am not seeing anything contentious in the content, perhaps attribute it to the sources more specifically. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add the content back. Would be appreciated. Then a more "local" user can be approached to evaluate the content in its place. I agree with you the information isnt contentious. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good prior to replacing to get the approval or some comment from the user that was removing it, would you leave him a link to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user has already made clear that he is not willing to compromize even an inch, so im not very hopeful for any meaningful compromize but I have notified the user. We dont need approval, but sure a comment on his/hers side of the argument and from that you or someone else will decide what to do.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now its up to you to give this dispute a senseful resolution. It has already been pinned out that there is no real reason to not restore the article. And as I told you on your talk page I will not interact with the user in question. That has proved pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see, I have left him a note to see if he has a comment to make and if he still objects to the content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ invited me to comment on this. After reading through the recent history of the article, my main comment is that I don't see how WP:BLP is particularly relevant to this dispute. It isn't cited as a reason for removing the paragraph. It seems to be more an accuracy dispute over whether the Azerbaijani TV ever broadcast the show, or showed the start but removed it when the winner became obvious. I would note that the story bears a striking similarity to the way that Jordanian TV removed the broadcast of the main Grand Prix Eurovision in 1978 when it became obvious that Israel was going to win, although that doesn't mean it didn't happen again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Sam, also user CT Cooper agrees that the content should be restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content has now been restored per the consensus reached. Dispute resolved.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Marvin

It would appear from the edit summary in this edit (which should probably be revdel'd?) that (alleged) subject contacted helpers in IRC with concerns about this article. (I was not present for that discussion).

Due to significant concerns over unreferenced controversial BLP material, I have removed most of the article with this edit.

I hope that was the right thing to do. Chzz ► 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the writing you removed had neutrality problems, not sure why you needed to stub it down so far as to eliminate inoffensive content like "He began his radio career in 1973 as a country music DJ at KWMC in Del Rio, Texas", as opposed to just adding a "citation needed" template. There seem to be reliable sources out there from which details can be confirmed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Scott Card

I'm very inexperienced at Wikipedia protocol but am currently involved in an edit war with a much more experienced user who keeps removing information about Orson Scott Card's anti-gay activism. Here is the section as I wrote it (please excuse my noobish formatting):

Card is zealously opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality.[16] In 1990, in an article entitled "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality," Card wrote favorably of preserving his state's laws criminalizing same-sex intercourse even between consenting adults - a law which, at the time, made any homosexual act a crime punishable by up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of $1,000: "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."[17]In 2006, one day before the 2006 midterm elections in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he (while being a Democrat) encouraged voters to support the Republicans in order to prevent homosexuality from being tolerated.[18] In the same article he threatened he would attempt to overthrow any government that recognized same-sex marriage, saying "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."[19] In 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage. [20]

And here is the section after the edit he keeps making:

In 2006, one day before the 2006 midterm elections in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he (while being a Democrat) encouraged voters to support the Republicans.[16] In the same article he voiced strong condemnation of any government that recognized gay marriage stating, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition..." In 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage. [17]

All mention of Card's advocacy for the criminalization of homosexuality has been deleted, and the quote about same-sex marriage has been cut to omit the vow Card made about destroying any government that sanctions it. The user is also renaming the section from "Anti-Gay Advocacy" to simply "Politics", which fails to be accurate since the only thing mentioned under the heading is LGBT rights, and because the very next section, "Environment and science", also deals with Card's political activism. The user (ResidentAnthropologist) has been making similar edits to the Westboro Baptist Church entry, removing references to criticism of that anti-gay group by mainstream religious organizations. He claims that my addition of information regarding Card's political advocacy violates WP:BLP and WP:OR, but will not explain how. He does not respond to my questions on the discussion page, but just keeps undoing my edit, and has placed an intimidating warning on my talk page saying that my account will be blocked if I do the same.

What can I do? Card is a professional anti-gay activist, a director of a lobbying group who finances campaigns on a national scale, and it seems absurd to remove noteworthy information describing his stated positions from his entry.--Frellthat (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the discussion on the article talk page. My take is that the other user is incorrect in maintaining that quoting Card's blog for his views is original research. It is clearly permissible under WP:SPS. However, his concerns that a lengthy discussion could violate WP:UNDUE has some validity. Personally I would add one more sentence quoting the language about destroying the government, which seems pretty notable. Our role here, while observing weight and other standards, is to inform, not to protect people against their own more problematic or difficult statements. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I believe the length and detail is warranted due to the extraordinary nature of Card's position. He says same-sex intercourse should be punishable by imprisonment. Surely no discussion of his position on LGBT rights could be complete if it failed to mention something like that. As Card is a director of a nationwide political organization which lobbies exclusively on the subject of LGBT rights, his views on LGBT rights must be firmly established, or the article fails to inform.--Frellthat (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your desired addition had a couple of problems such as http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html , I not certain if this is a WP:RS with WP:SPS self published issues, and the other one http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-11-04-1.html - perhaps only for content about himself and the first one and second one appear to be a republications of previous articles in other publications which can create copyright issues if there is no permission to reprint, you can get over this by using the original article as the source and quoting from it without the secondary external - that is if you trust the seconday has republished the content accurately and in complete form as it was originally published in the primary article. All those quotes is usually considered WP:undue as anyone can take three quotes from a lifetime of speaking and writing and assert almost anything. The article is now fully protected so the best thing for you to do is to continue to discuss and look for an addition that is acceptable to the editors involved in the discussion as per WP:CONSENSUS. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visit his political website ww.ornery.org and use the internal search function to look up "homosexual". He has written about gay marriage and gay rights pretty much nonstop. This is not a question of cobbling together three quotes over thirty years. This guy is notable both for his science fiction and his political views. Although I agree with you the original paragraph gave undue weight compared to over-all article length, the result should not be to protect this guy against views he is proud to express on every possible occasion, to anyone who will listen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, how can it be WP:undue? Card was not quote-mined - the quotes are provided merely to establish his position, which he's publicized in detail. AFAIK, he's not relented on anything. A person who says any government that recognizes same-sex marriage is his "mortal enemy" and must be "destroyed" is not the kind who is likely to change his mind - but if his position has changed, I'd certainly be happy to make appropriate changes to the entry.--Frellthat (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of those articles was from 2009, so I don't think he has moved his position much if at all. I think a mid point might get consensus, a smaller less bold addition. I left the other user a talkpage note to this discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is a somehwat subjective standard, but arguably applied because your edit was five paragraphs in a thirty paragraph bio:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic....Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I think we can find a solution where we can re-include some of your content while keeping it short. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are several elements here I think need addressing "Card is zealously opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality." is pov statement that we should not even pretend is ok. The issue here is Cherry picking various statements to try and demonize card. I dont agree with his views in the slightest but I also recognize that we shouldnt be digging through his writing to create some WP:SYNTHESIS sources to get a cohesive statement on his views. We rely on secondary sources to take note of his essay make such critical analysis when necessary. The article as is discusses National Organization for Marriage and his views that homosexuality is wrong. We dont need to find the most inflammatory writing we can and paste it in there. Its WP:UNDUE and unnecessary. Also on "bringing down the government" note the statment of "quoting the language about destroying the government, which seems pretty notable. " is precisely the problem. We are evaluating his views and picking and choosing what "we think is important." is precisely the type of WP:NOR we should be avoiding.

I dont think calling him zealot and "opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality." is within our best interest. I also think anti-gay advocate is incorrect terminology as well. These are fairly common views which may or may not be wrong though certainly disagree with them. Forgive me for not replying in under 2 hours to User:Frellthat statements on the talk page. I was editing between classes and was not "refusing to respond" in the two hours between Talk page posting and BLPN thread here. . I dont think any one either was uncontroversially removing WP:COATRACK material from Westboro Baptist Church a "bad action" I am very proud of BLP work I do there and one in which Rob and I worked together on. As for the 3RR warning that is standard for all disputes where edit warring is occurring as any one here can tell you. I do not regret removing material I felt violated BLP and will continue to do so. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to these points in no particular order: 1. The word "zealously" I will concede should be replaced by some other synonym without negative connotations, such as "emphatically". 2. I said you were not responding to my requests for discussion because, looking at your activity page, I could see that you were making numerous edits to other articles at the time, but were neglecting to respond to my request. I humbly suggest that if you have time to remove information, you should have time to explain why. 3. The heading title "Anti-Gay Advocacy" is certainly not a POV term. When one is advocating that gay behavior should be a criminal offense, one is anti-gay. The WBC page contains a heading called "Anti-Gay Picketing". Orson Scott Card, according to the same understanding of the term, performs anti-gay advocacy. 4. Same with "opposes tolerance of homosexuality". If you are suggesting something should be a criminal offense, you oppose tolerance of it. I consider this neutral and objective language. 5. The statements from Card were not chosen according to how inflammatory they are, but only to elucidate his positions on different LGBT rights issues. For one, he opposes marriage rights. For another, he opposes the right of same-sex couples to have consensual sex in their own homes. It is important to list these things in an article about him, because he is a director of a national political organization that lobbies exclusively on the subject of gay rights. It would not be fair to readers who come to the article and expect to learn about his political advocacy if we avoided accurately describing that advocacy for fear of causing him to be "villified".--Frellthat (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed I made other edit as I always do, I apologize my editing on Wiki does not revolve around making edits at Orson Scott card bio. The article right now covers his affiliation with Nation marriage defense org and views neatley in two sentences. for the most part its irrealavent for the most part for his biography. If these views are notable and deserve more space then please provide secondary sourcing to support these views as important feature of his writings. You make it clear here that advocacy for the Gay-right position is more important than BLP. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they had to be important features of his writings? This section is about his political advocacy, not his science fiction. I'm sure Mr. Card feels it's important - in fact, I think he's written somewhere that it's about the survival of civilization.--Frellthat (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmm I am tlaking about his writings as whole. Essays and everthing The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picking appropriate quotes from a source is not synthesis so long as it is done with our other standards in view. Otherwise, the writing of any Wikipedia article would be an act of synthesis, except for those extremely rare ones in which we include a source in its entirety. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but thats the problem here its not being done within our standards. Our own statement says WP:PRIMARY "Do not ... evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thats not going on here we are picking and choosing which views we find like or dislike and highlighting it in there. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That generic statement would apply to dense primary sources like census data, deposition transcripts, directories etc. It isn't meant to ban the use of an author's own essays as a source for his opinions. There is no requirement that if an author has written repeatedly "I believe X" we have to find a third party source to confirm he believes X. And again, when someone has been as clear and categorical as Card about his beliefs, there is no illegal synthesis involved in quoting him.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider volumes of essays, books, short stories "dense material." I agree to assert X believes X is fine generally. The issue here is We are not working with other policies like WP:UNDUE We need to prove this excessive detail is necessary. Its minor thing in prolific writer career. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's irrelevant to his writing career, but why should the article just be about his writing career? I hardly think a few sentences about LGBT issues is an excessive amount of detail on a page about a political activist who works exclusively on LGBT-rights issues.--Frellthat (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How about LA Times, Salon and Wired for reliable sources? Card is "a bitter public foe of same-sex marriage", LA Times. "I'd somehow failed to ascertain that Card was a disgustingly outspoken homophobe..." from this Salon interview which quotes Card as saying, " Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted. And the idea of 'gay marriage' -- it's hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison." Also: "The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community." Here's a comment from Wired: " Orson Scott Card has written a strongly anti-gay screed that goes so far as to propose active rebellion to ensure that marriage is legally defined to his liking. Like many others who have read his diatribe, I am utterly repulsed by his words, to the point that they have drastically altered my perception of him as a person, and yes, to some extent, as an author." Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Its minor thing in prolific writer career"--He's written numerous essays on his own web site and elsewhere about homosexual marriage and rights, discussed it in interviews with mainstream media, joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage....Not a minor side note but a major focus of his for the last few years. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to such material in the article and the article covers it as is. I just to go into excessive detail. We should give it appropriate weight and right now I think it has personally. He has also written many other things that are not about homosexuality as well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't cover it as is. You removed all mention of his advocacy for the criminalization of same-sex intercourse (a major policy position), and you removed the fact that he urged open rebellion and vowed to destroy any government that recognized same-sex marriage. Those quotes put the earlier views into context and show the depth of his convictions to be anything but trivial.--Frellthat (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I did not read the entire discussion so this point may have already been made. However someone above mentioned his blog should be allowed as it's an SPS. This may not apply here but I feel I should point out we generally avoid solely using blogs to describe someone's POVs. While there may be no question the person said it, there remains the question of relevence. If someone has a blog, they've probably written a lot of things. We as editors should generally refrain from deciding for ourselves which of those things matter and which of them don't. The way we can avoid this is by relying on other sources which have picked up what a person said to decide for us if those things they've said matter. (In some cases particularly controversial political commentators even this isn't enough since there's so much stuff they say which is picked up my some source.) The fact that someone has written about it a lot doesn't guarantee it really matters. Particularly for someone who is highly notable which many sources discussing them, it seems unlikely that no other sources would have picked up important details about them. So if it's the case that no other sources have picked up what they've said even if they've said it many times, then we can presume they feel it doesn't matter and it's ultimately not for us to disagree with said sources judgement on what matters about the person. Just to emphasise I'm not saying we should exclude the material, there may be other sources, just explaining the fact it's sourced to the person's blog doesn't mean it's okay to include. P.S. Another point, if it's true Card is being paid for his activism as alleged by the OP in the first posts, this creates another dimension. Is there any actual evidence for this? Directors of non profits and advocacy organisations are often unpaid AFAIK. If there isn't evidence then I suggest the claim not be repeated. (Or if the OP didn't intend to imply Card was being paid for his activism I suggest they avoid the term professional which when used in a context like the OPs usually implies the person is being paid.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Yes, indeed. Independent publications assert notability - independent articles that have found something worthy of reporting is what we are primarily looking to report, if no one else has reported it, why should we. Are independent reliable sources available to consider? Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly disagree. This guy has been on a campaign for years. His essays in his blog are not casual but constant, he's a director of an activist organization, has written for other publications and discussed his views with interviewers. Secondary sources--LA Times, Wired and Salon--also exist; I cited them above. But to say we can't quote an author's web site or blog for his own opinion because its a primary source elevates form over substance to the nth degree. The mental operation in choosing a quote is not forbidden synthesis but the same exact mental exercise involved in choosing a quote from any secondary source. What seems to happen sometimes is that we go out of our way (thus committing a neutrality violation) to protect people against their own unpleasant or embarrassing utterances--even people like Card who don't want the protection and are happy to express their opinions to anyone who will listen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about his blog anyway. Nothing I referenced in my original edit came from a blog. His essays regarding gay rights were all published in different journals. The one in which he advocated the outright criminalization of same-sex intercourse and basically said that gays have no rights whatsoever ("Hypocrites of Homosexuality") was first published in Sunstone (magazine), a Mormon publication. Can you tell me why it should not be used?----Frellthat (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I don't know how this turned into a blog discussion. However (and now somewhat off topic) I wanted to remind everyone that WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly authorizes the use of self published material so long as it isn't unduly self serving or doesn't contain assertions about third parties. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ResidentAnthropologist's "excessive detail" claim - I wonder if he has considered how the average LGBT reader feels when he is forced to learn from reading some other website that Wikipedia's editors decided to omit the fact that Card wants his very existence to be illegal, because one of those editors thought it was an "excessive detail"? Card is one of the directors of NOM, a group that constantly claims that they are not against gays, but just against "redefining marriage". But the stated opinions of their own board members show that they will not stop at marriage, that they only use the marriage issue to conceal what they really want, which is the banning of gays from adoption, military service, teaching, etc., and eventually the re-criminalization of same-sex intercourse itself. If we omit those stated positions because they're "excessive detail", Wikipedia will be contributing to that deception.----Frellthat (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande

On this article for some time IP or new editors have been changing this girls surname to Butera. I have googled her and found this may be her real surname. 59 Results But a search for Ariana Grande yields 1,600,000 results What is the course of action in a situation such as this? Tentontunic (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On her website here she is stating her full name is Ariana Joan Grande which gets a lot of hits also, over 10,000 - needs a really good source to assert a name change when she is stating this name, seems it might be the correct age and the correct town this one is the strongest I can see of the few close to reliable there, http://www.montanatucker.com/press/article06.html imo without additional detail its of little value anyways, like unless you can cite the parents names and some kind of reason , divorce in the family, mother remarried or stage name. Considering her usage and declaration of her name and looking at the sources on this page and the searches I would say there is nothing strong enough to claim a birth name as yet. Her notability is also quite minor and as such imo her common name is currently sufficient. I would appreciate another users investigation and comments as I am not hugely experienced in naming conventions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a rock-solid reliable source verifies the name, the addition should simply be reverted as OR. It looks like a couple of people have searched for sources (I didn't) and found nothing other than a few mentions (which might be echoes of each other). That demonstrates that the information is not of encyclopedic value, and should be omitted even if plausibly true. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Zak

The Diane Zak page seems to have been heavily vandalized and contains material that seems extremely libelous. She apparently is a real person. There seems to be vandalism layered on vandalism and it's not clear to me there is a resolution short of total or near-total removal of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreykegler (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last unvandalized rev might be that of 02:10, 6 December 2010.--Jeffreykegler (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbed it and then proposed it for deletion as she does not seem to meet our notability requirements. The article creator has retired from Wikipedia and it seems as if no-one else was watching for a while. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've semiprotected the article in light of the serious BLP vandalism from IPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jett

(posting a request put in an {{adminhelp}} on User talk:Manway#Concern about a biographical article Chzz ► 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about a biographical article

{{adminhelp}} I have a concern about a biographical article Joseph Jett. Apparently the subject of the article has changed it in the past, removing criticisms. Now tonight, USER:Comix03072011 signs up at 19:17 hours and at 19:21 starts a string of 31 edits to the Jett article in 7 hours. Quite a few of those changes take out criticism of Jett and replace it with glowing reports. Am I seeing things or is this unusual? Thanks for a second look. --Manway (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Manway has edited the additions back to a more correct guideline compliant position. If it is a repeat pattern you could request WP:PENDING PROTECTION - Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is back. I cannot figure out how to request pending changes. I'm getting close to a 3RR situation here. Sockpuppets confirmed in this case. --Manway (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brando

This report concerns a possible BLP violation in the article Christian Brando regarding his mother, Anna Kashfi, who is living. It's about a quote attributed to author Nellie Bly that contains an allegation of child neglect. I haven't supplied a diff for technical reasons relating to the Wiki Edit app I'm using.

The problem is that the quote is not cited. Although Nellie Bly did write a biography of Brando, the quote is not cited to the book, and the book is obscure enough that I can't find it locally. An accusation of child neglect is serious enough that I'm not sure it should stand without clear and specific attribution as long as Anna Kashfi is living. Could I get advice as to whether this should be stripped? I'm not familiar enough with current BLP practice to be certain.

Please note that I am not associated with the author Nellie Bly; the similarity between her name and my nom is coincidental. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily good sourcing. I've removed various statements from that section. Some of it might be suitable to go back in if more information from and about the book turns up, or if other sources are found. Some of the remaining material is still only sourced to "crimelibrary.com" which I don't imagine is the best of sources. (If Christian were still alive then I'd be tempted to remove links to a site which lists him as one of "notorious murderers" when he was actually only convicted of manslaughter.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Safi

Some extra eyes on the Omid Safi article may be required. I removed this section which contained what looks to me like contentious material sourced to a blog. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of contentious material about a third party under WP:SPS. I watchlisted the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, support removal and watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Dervaes: eyes welcome

There's some serious edit-warring going on in this article the last few weeks over a plagiarism allegation (without proper sourcing), and I wouldn't be surprised if there's two drawers full of socks active. Anyway, the subject is a BLP, and the accusations are violations of our policy. Your attention and analysis is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on my watchlist and commented on the talk page of the latest editor. The article Urban Homesteading also discusses him and was edited by the same person. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blooded (film)

Contains very harsh accusations against pro- and anti-hunting organizations, with no reliable sourcing that I can spot. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator also created an article about the company that created the movie - Ptarmigan - and uploaded the logo of the film company and three other company related uploads claiming copyright of all four - even the soundtrack clip. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_brownson - Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- promo poster - own work

- soundtrack sample - own work

- source magma pictures - own work - yea right. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- logo - own work

Joseph Jett

Hello,

A friend and I did a paper for black history month on Wall Street and the African-American experience. We had the opportunity of having one of the subjects, Joseph Jett, detail his Wall Street experience concentrating on the impact of new media on business. Wikipedia, Facebook and Twitter were main items. Reginald Lewis, the other financier, did not speak as he is dead. My friend and I took the publicly sourced material from magazines such as Barron's, The New York Observer and yeah the Harvard Crimson and used it to add to the timeline on the Jett article and included issues related to race. We also used documents published by the SEC to create a table on their conviction rates. We included references to every addition that we made. We removed one citation about a 2009 SEC investigation as we called the SEC and they had no knowledge of the investigation having taken place nor were any references cited.

Now, simply because the facts we present disagree with someone else's desire for what the facts should be, he has sent a letter addressing us apparently to convey derogatory sentiment as Mr. Jett.

Mr. Jett in his talk spoke about his 3 year battle to have Wikipedia remove defamatory information from this page. What is going on here? If someone is going to remove any addition it should be for a reason of improper references or attribution. We did a lot of work and the additions we made are indeed scholarly. As I posted, if you look at the archive you will see that this "everyone posting a favorable remark must be Mr. Jett" is way overused and this page clearly had a negative intent as Jett asserted and as Wikipedia's legal team agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relief03082011 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jett

I received a message from the fellow who removed our additions to the Joseph Jett page. I include it here in hopes that you will actually look at what was added, what was deleted and the references used and the fact that the SEC was contacted regarding the unreferenced post which was the only one that Comix deleted. And of course we have the same IP address we are sitting two feet apart.

Dear Manway,

I notice from all the comments that anyone posting a favorable article must be Mr. Jett. Please do not be juvenile.

I filed a complaint with the biography of living persons as to our edits. We fleshed out the Jett article from properly referenced major newspapers and magazines after a black history month look at black pioneers on Wall Street. I do not understand your beef.

The article championed the SEC without noting that the SEC has a 94% conviction ratio. Is that not pertinent information? We sourced the SEC report so how can there be criticism of that.

Jett's color certainly played a roll in this affair. We cited from major newspaper articles about the impact of race. You say that this is not scholarly?

We added that GE own NBC and did a story on Law & Order based on Jett. AGain what is your issue with this? We used IMDB as the source. The media power of GE certainly played a role in the Jett case. How is this not a pertinent addition?

You should not have the right to remove anything that does not support your particular bias. We certainly did not. We did talk to the SEC. They knew nothing of a 2009 SEC investigation, but did send us to their website for the conviction ratio table. Since the 2009 SEC investigation had no reference cited and the SEC knew nothing we removed it. How is this not scholarly?

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