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.

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

Resolved

– Reporter User:Mindbunny has been indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of WP:Disruptive editing : WP:POINT,WP:BATTLE

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

I was initially going to nominate the page for deletion, but 1) the page is protected and can't be nominated for deletion, 2) discussion might be better than deletion anyway. It is relevant here because WP:BLP "applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." There doesn't seem to be an ideal forum for discussion, but since BLP does officially appply, I'll try here.

This page is a narrative of a prolonged dispute from years ago. Unfortunately, it is also an attack page, primarily aimed at a now-banned user but also blaming, active editors. It is almost completely unsourced. Information about the identity of editors can't be sourced, because it is off-wiki (mostly from Wikipedia Review AKA "WR") The more inflammatory the accusation, the less likely it is that there's a source The page says:

"The man behind the accounts has been named on Wikipedia Review as a middle-aged British civil servant who stole photographs of attractive women so he could pretend the accounts were run by them...He has a history of impersonating women elsewhere" (unsourced)
"...he claimed to be G______. H_______., 26 years old, who lived either in Hertfordshire or Essex." (unsourced)
"The writing was also either very masculine and pompous, or too feminine, or rather it was what some men might suppose is feminine — simpering, flirtatious, and childish." (attack)
"It was pretty clear that the writer was male, probably an older man, and very likely someone who had issues with women and little experience of close relationships with them." (attack, unsourced)
"Others began to join WR, some of them frankly lunatics, and a couple who seemed violent." (attack, unsourced)

Potential accusations of crimes or liabilities:

"He started the rumour that I was an intelligence agent, which Brandt and Slashdot later picked up on." (potentially an accusation of defamation; unsourced)
"What he or they did is likely to have involved a degree of real-world pursuit (or stalking, depending on how you look at it)" (potentialallegation of a crime, unsourced)
"They held a poll to decide whether the Mossad would kill me or jail me when they found out what I was "up to." They posted that I had faked my own death, and that I was a teenage girl who had murdered her mother." (potential allegation of a crime, unsourced)

I stopped excerpting about half way through (but the attacks, hints of identifying information, and unsourced insinuations with legal implications continue).

The page also contains a section devoted to User:Cla68 [1], who is currently active on Wikipedia: "The WR attacks have carried over onto Wikipedia with User:Cla68's pursuit of me, which has been going on for over a year. Cla is also strongly supported by Lar (who has told people that I am the Wikipedian he most dislikes)." The gist of the section is that Cla68 opposed SlimVirgin in an ArbCom case. That's it. He is included in this narrative alleging death threats and stalking, as an attempt to smear by association. SlimVirgin's comment shows bias: "The diffs Cla produced in his ArbCom evidence against me [6] do not show what he claims they show. But again, who has the time to go through them all," She didn't read them, yet knows they don't show what he claimed... The page contains periodic blamings and sideswipes of other editors, but no other editors get their own section.

The page has been defended on the grounds that it documents abuse, and as such could be useful in preventing recurrence. First, it is just SlimVirgin's narrative. Documenting anything requires sources. Second, most of the abuse it describes is on another Web site (Wikipedia Review). Third, it doesn't document abuse to speculate on someone's dysfunctional relationships with women, to publish identifying information about his name, residence, and age, or to insult him as simpering and pompous. Fourth, some of the accusations could be construed as having legal implications yet are unsourced. It's possible that a much abbreviated version of this page could belong on Wikipedia, if it contained a distillation of information solely needed to prevent a recurrence. As it stands, it isn't related to making content choices and has little value helping us work together. It is mostly a way for SlimVirgin to attack her enemies.

Note, there is an official page for documenting long-term abuse: [2]: why hasn't it been used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a history page, very useful as a reference. It is not an attack page. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it is a history page, it should be in a section on long term abuse/special abusers as Poetlister certainly was/is one. And it should not be fully protected. My actual thought is that this page is more of a blog posting summary of events from SV's point of view and is not a good page for inclusion in wikipedia anywhere. It would be better kept either at home, or (if SV wants it public) hosted somewhere else. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how unsourced claims can be "useful as a reference". Ditto for outright viiolations of policy, such as publishing identifying information about an editor--and then insinuating he has "issues with women". Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page refers to several people by their real names. That would bring it into the BLP orbit. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing. On the substance, we do have lost of pages recording past events, and people's opinions of other's editing - so allowing one user to have a "right of reply" in their userspace is no biggy. To compare this with BLP is silly. All the people mentioned on that page voluntarily participated in this project, have commented on other users, and now have only their own conduct being commented upon. So, no big deal. If there is an issue it has to do with user interaction and courtesy not with BLP. Further, I am not aware of either Cla or Lar having complained about the existence of the page, and both are big enough to fight their own battles without Mindbunny's help (Poetlister can burn in hell; we don't need to worry about offending him/her/it). Having said all that, I courtesy blanked some of my own old userspace commentary which touched on Slim Virgin, so she might be open to doing the same, if reasonably requested by those affected. Bottom line: there is no action to take here.--Scott Mac 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack page, certainly not the Poetlister comments; truth being the rationale - plus the fact that Poetlister is an account name, not a person, and the relationship between Poetlister and the RL identity is verifiable and provable (it may be argued that by not referencing the facts that it is less of a potential source of embarrasment than it may be) as is the determination of his abuses of accounts and the identities of innocent third parties. The antipathy between SlimVirgin and Lar is also a matter of record, and - if Lar was still active - would likely be acknowledged. As for Cla68, I think he is also pragmatic enough to acknowledge that SV has voiced her concerns regarding him in several venues - and so is a matter of record.
Declaration of interest; I am familiar with "Poetlister" and their lies, deceits, and issues - and have been one of those initially fooled - and can vouch for the accuracy of SV's detailing of their activity. I am also aware that it is of concern that the person behind Poetlister continues to try and infiltrate WP - so such a record is useful when checking the activities of a suspicious account. Lastly, me and Slim... We are not friends, but are on better terms now than in the past.
Why is this so important to you that you should continue with this after it did not gain traction at the admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traction? In the ANI, it was suggested by an admin that I nominate it for deletion. Since I couldn't nominate it for deletion, I tried a different forum, that's all. The ANI closed for reasons that had nothing to with the reasons for objecting to it (an open a request for arbitration, since closed). The page is mostly unsourced and an attack. I am also, frankly, tired of SlimVirgin's attacks, but an editor's motives in complaining about something have nothing to do with the merit of the case. Mindbunny (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is for discussing edits, not editors. Scott Mac, I struck your attacks. If an admin wants to move this to MfD, that's fine. I was unable to do so, because the page is protected. It would be helpful if editors addressed the actual points. The idea that it is not an attack page because it is true is pretty silly, and not something that reflects any policy. Cal68 is on record as objecting to it, asking for it to be moved to WR. The page publishes identifying information about an editor and speculates about his sex life (or lack thereof), and accuses people of things are potentially crimes, and all of that is unsourced. Mindbunny (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not say too much about this, except that Mindbunny seems to be pursuing me in various ways, and I'd appreciate it if it would stop. I haven't read that page for a long time, so I'll undertake to read it soon and tighten bits of it, especially where names of editors are concerned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I really think that's all that needs done here. Mindbunny - stop pushing, it looks our like patience is wearing thin on several fronts.--Scott Mac 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Off-hand criticism of living people in non-article space where Mindbunny opened a threat to propose that disparaging remarks about living people SHOULD be allowed in userspace, and SHOULD NOT be a violation of the BLP policy. The opposition thing he's arguing here. Draw your own conclusions.--Scott Mac 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Sarah"? Who is Sarah? Bielle (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reference to SlimVirgin. Scott Mac and SlimVirgin must know each other in real life, or at least be friendly. That explains everything. Mindbunny (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has only been active for two years, I am happy that records of such outrageous misbehavior are preserved in this form. Institutional memory is critical, and we must be certain that the people who misbehaved so horridly, as well as those who might choose to emulate them, are prevented from doing so in the future. As for you, SlimVirgin, I sympathize for the anguish you must have felt back then. Reading this account only deepens my respect for all the work you have done to advance and protect this wonderful project over the years. I thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but when revising the page it would be a good idea to keep BLP in mind when referring to living people by name. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it a while back, and it is eye opening, and extremely useful source of Wikipedia's history. It is a crash course on Wiki-politics for novices. It must be preserved absolutely. I haven't noticed real names; if these are mentioned, they don't need to be there. As for the initiator of this post, he was clearly (a) pursuing the author of the page and (2) making a point. I think this should stop, or be stopped. - BorisG (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly interesting that people keep referring to completely unsourced allegations as "documentary" and "a record", and "useful source of...history." Also, that speculation about someone's emotional dysfunction with women could be considered "useful history." Also, that posting identifying characteristics such as initials of real name, where he lives, who works for, and his age is not, taken together, considered a violation of "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....". And that some of these allegations carry criminal implications (death threats, real-worldstalking) and are unsourced, yet nobody is conerned about potential defamation. And, of course, that bringing these concerns to a noticeboard immediately causes some editors to attack the editor with the concerns, rather than actually address the topic. Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. If it is not adequate to the task, the problem should be addressed in a constructie way. Instead, it is being dodged and I am being called an "idiot" by an admin. Mindbunny (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. True. But the first step in all of these procedures is to approach the person that appears to be disruptive and ask them to stop this behaviour. That is what I am doing. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I came here for the Santorum controversy. But I saw this one, and it sounds pretty disturbing to me. I have no way to read the article since SlimVirgin, according to the comment, temporarily deleted it. But deleting it at this point makes it hard to analyze under BLP. Since it's been deleted, I can only go by what's being said here, and what's been said here and not rebutted doesn't sound good. I don't care if the user who complains said similar things were okay on another page, this complaint sounds pretty bad on its own merits. Wikipedia does not allow unsourced negative material about people. We do have an exception: "some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." But the material that is purported to be on that page does make serious real life accusations and does contain personal attacks. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also only have this string to go on. But reach a slightly different conclusion. It seems there is some POINTy attacking going on. I'm not a fan of wikihounding. Bad for morale, as a general matter. As to the specifics, from what I read the only possible issue is if real names are reflected, and in an inappropriate way, which it would appear may not be the case or if it is then SV seems interested in addressing that complaint. I don't see much more to be done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that BLP doesn't apply when real names aren't used would let us make accusations against basically anyone. We'd just have to point out that we haven't identified the person, and that any external sites that have identified him are not under our control, so it's not our fault that the combination of Wikipedia and the external site allows a negative inference to be made about the person. This would be a huge loophole that would make BLP worthless. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the deleted page may have exhibited the characteristics you mention, plenty of us have read the page and can confirm that it is a very useful record of an extremely worrying part of Wikipedia's history (and I think the only BLP issue was that some early revisions of the page contained the real name of the highly disturbed individual behind all the trouble). I hope SlimVirgin restores the page as her deletion edit summary suggests ("deleting this for now until I have time to copy edit it") because the community needs significant events documented for assistance with future problems. This discussion was started as a POINT and should not be continued unless someone has evidence of a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of the problem has been given repeatedly, and at every repetition is met with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and invocations of WP:POINT that serve to dodge the point. The contentious claims are unsourced. They can't document anything. Deal with the merits of the concern, instead of attacking those who raise it. Mindbunny (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Mindbunny is doing it too, then I would have no problem from making the same complaint about him. I can't see the things he posted either and there doesn't seem to be a good summary of them with enough details. But I really don't care. So the accusation does come from a user who does the same things himself. So what? It's bad when either person does it. And while he may be trying a WP:POINT, I'm certainly not. May I complain about the article starting from scratch and have it be treated as a legitimate BLP complaint? Those excerpts show far more than is necessary for documenting abuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point missed by those complaining about the "unsourced" aspect of the essay is that the events are recorded in the history of various pages (from memory, I think there was reference to a couple of other Wikimedia projects where history is also available, and perhaps to some off-wiki forums(?) where the text is likely to persist). There are a few possibilities: (1) SV invented large parts of the text (i.e. it's lies); (2) SV invented small embellishments (i.e. some details are lies); (3) SV made a couple of minor errors (i.e. some text is incorrect); (4) SV accurately recorded events that really did occur. Possibilities (1) and (2) are vanishingly improbable because SV is known to not lie, but also because the events were a huge drama, and SV a very well known figure with lots of people who follow everything she does, particularly when a drama unfolds—I have never heard any claim that there were inaccuracies in the essay (and it certainly is not all made up). Regarding (3) vs. (4): It does not matter if a couple of minor errors were made. The experienced editors who saw the events occur, and who investigated the issues in the following months, would have made a large amount of noise if the essay contained any significant errors. No one can point to any dissent regarding the essay other than claims that it needed more sources (i.e. evidence diffs). Regarding the essay as an "attack" is to totally miss the point: the events described were monumentally disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia, and it is vital that such abuses are recorded for reference as needed in the future (see WP:LTA for more). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does change things to some extent. If these are events that happened elsewhere on Wikipedia, that should obviously fall under the "administrative issues" exception.

I'm not convinced, though (given that I can't see the essay itself) that, from the description above, that it only covers events elsewhere on Wikipedia. It sounds as if a lot of it is about off-Wiki events and interpretations of them that may not necessarily have directly affected Wikipedia. Yes, they attacked a Wikipedian, but imagine if every user was allowed to put on their user page "I went to Wikipedia Review and I found that Wikipedian ____ obviously has issues with women. And he's a lunatic." It almost makes you wish for BADSITES.

It also sounds as if the essay involves users other than the banned one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Mindbunny (talk · contribs) for repeated WP:POINT. Hopefully this will be the end of their disruptions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Ser Luck

There is defamatory and libelous information found on Talk:Teo Ser Luck. I've tried removing but a user by the name User:La goutte de pluie kept replacing it. User:La goutte de pluie has repeatedly vandalized the Teo Ser Luck page despite being told that self-published blogs as references aren't allowed. He did not update any other information pertaining to the living person, just kept reverting to his edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.246 (talk • contribs)

I think there are editors here that would be interested in looking at this issue but you need to provide us with diffs that specifically illustrate the issue at hand. As for accusations of vandalism, that should be taken to the Wikiquette noticeboard with some very specific diffs to back it up as it is a strong statement to make about another editor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to provide a balanced view of the article. I even commented out the disputed section while discussion was in progress; I have invited the user to use the talk pages? I am very receptive to discussion, but I note that Yahoo News is generally a reliable source; correspondingly, writers hired by Yahoo News to write on Singaporean affairs are also reliable, as much as an opinion columnist on the Huffington Post is. If you google "Teo Ser Luck", discussion of his lacklustre rally style are easily found near the top, and are commented by a wide amount of writers. Yahoo News is only one of many sources discussing this issue.

The allegation is not to smear -- indeed, Teo Ser Luck's party often does the smearing -- but rather that if the PAP boasts to be a highly experienced and highly qualified government, why does it have high-ranking officials of such poor calibre? This is not my allegation, it is the Opposition's. Opposition-sympathetic views of a minister should be allowed to be on an article about a prominent politician.

I am very open to discussion! I have repeatedly tried using the talk pages and many avenues of discussion. Deleting talk page comments, and sockpuppetry, as this user has done, is clearly unjustified. It is not my tendency to edit war, but lack of discussion by those who disagree with my edits, when I have invited discussion, is disturbing to me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." -- WP:BLPSPS

I believe my source qualifies. Fann Sim is a professional under the full of editorial control of Yahoo News -- a very prominent source. Given Singapore's censorship, this is remarkable. However the user has not even engaged in discussion with me! I would like to know how my concern of censorship and whitewashing -- a very real concern given my country ranks #151 in the world -- is known as smearing. Actually I am inclined to add any relevant information as well. It seems to be the policy of MCYS -- I can support this with diffs, and I have caught Ministry IPs doing it -- to add "official" overly self-promoting, non-NPOV content from government websites and it flies under the radar, and to delete criticism of government ministers, even if they are well-sourced. MCYS agents have gone so far as to delete citations from the The Economist. This is alarming! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate how you have repeatedly smear the party mentioned or any politicians due to your extreme political views. I also do not appreciate how u have repeatedly accuse me of whitewashing when I have been taking efforts to make edits to members from other parties. Looking back at your edits made at Vivian Balakrishnan and Tin Pei Ling's pages , I'll suggest you to stop trolling if you cannot stay civil. Was Teo Ser Luck's rally speech of most importance that you have to keep adding it? Or are you just trying to include the particular youtube link just so to increase views to make you feel better? When President Obama accidentally became the joke of the day during his trip to the UK, was it documented on his wiki page? If trivia news like this need to be updated, I'd suggest you go and count the number of mistakes both opposition and proposition make in their rally speeches and update their pages. Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo. It remains an unofficial source. It is listed as blog over there for a reason. Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources.

I do not see the link with MCYS agents as Teo Ser Luck is now under MIT. I was waiting for you to finish vandalizing before editing his shift to MIT. Now you are still harping about MCYS. You even reverted my edits after I changed everything his new posts just to make it seem he's still with MCYS. Who is the one with the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.242 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to include the youtube link, I am trying to include a reliably sourced article. I really want to assume good faith, and I am really curious if you have read policy about two things: reliable sources, and Wikipedia:vandalism. Content disputes do not consist of vandalism; furthermore, misleading edit summaries are liable to get you sanctioned in some way or other.

"Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources."

Certainly the video is viral and is widely echoed around the internet that it appears at the top of search results and dominates google searches for Teo Ser Luck; secondly the issue is mentioned in a wide plethora of sources; but the Yahoo News link has the highest prestige. Thirdly, in a country with little press freedom, I do not find your argument that a significant event would be covered in more sources. There are many significant events that are not covered by the mainstream press due to well-known political bias. The existence of one reliable source that echo a wide array of views online is sufficient. Note that had a politician in a country with a freer press made such gaffes, it would be all over the news -- see George W Bush. Sarah Palin makes a slip-up an interview and one source covers this -- we include it.

I don't know what you consider "extreme political views". A large bulk of information in the Vivian Balakrishnan article favourable towards him was written by me. My accusation of whitewashing is not unfounded. I have repeatedly caught IPs from Ministry addresses editing articles on Singaporean politicians -- to say this on a talk page is not vandalism. You revert unilaterally and you do not use discussion pages unless your revision is threatened -- this is the only reason why I revert so frequently, is to try to get you to use the talk pages. You never use discussion voluntarily! I can post messages on your myriad sockpuppet pages and you never respond to them. When you accuse me of being incivil, I suggest you read Wikipedia:civility. If I were not an involved editor, I would have blocked you for your behaviour a long time ago. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo."

This is a false accusation. Should I unilaterally remove your statement as libel, as you have done? Please read http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/fann-sim-/ and tell me that this author does not exhibit a high dose of professionalism in writing for Yahoo and helping it earn revenue (the writer would not be a guest writer, for example) and does not represent Yahoo News (after all, "follow Yahoo! News" is listed at the end of every article). I would appreciate if you would actually address the fact that blogs of reliable news sources are considered authoritative because of strict editorial control. I would appreciate if you actually addressed the appropriate sections of policy head-on. And yet you would remove my talk page comments on Teo Ser Luck simply because you do not agree with them! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense SingaporeScene is a reliable source. Its subtitle is "fit to post" -- i.e. there is editorial control. All articles are written professionally. Articles have no POV disclaimers and are strongly linked with the Yahoo! News brand and even a physical address for the Yahoo branch in Singapore. Fann Sim is listed as a journalist; Jeffrey Oon is the SingaporeScene editor; SingaporeScene was formally called the Yahoo! Singapore Newsroom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article to stop the edit war and let this discussion proceed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection is still active (Til June 12th) but I see that the article was still being edited as of June 8 by one of the warring parties. Does Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} who made the last edit have special editing privileges? Btw I already made a comment on the edit which I am copyin and pasting here.

The problem with that source is that its writing style shows that its more befitting of a blog/semi-serious editorial style rather than a serious article. I've copied the relevant section from the source word for word here below:

"Teo Ser Luck transformed himself into somewhat of an overaged, over-enthusiastic cheerleader during one of the PAP rallies by yelling all the names of six-man Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports saved the best for last when he shouted for the estimated 1,000-crowd to chant his own name. The response was, er, less than encouraging."

Input and opinion other experienced editors not involved in this issue should be weighed about how serious the article should be taken in the context of the writing style, but my personal strong take on this is that its not meant to be taken as a serious write up and unsuitable for use as a source. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zhanzhao. That's my point exactly. He just wouldn't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chenge - missing source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Chenge

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

Michael Theoklitos

Resolved

– WP:NPOV version of events restored to article; general copy-edit and BLP cleanup completed. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. A single-purpose account has been removing sourced negative material from this BLP. I've been reverting this on the basis of WP:NOTCENSORED.

The SPA, Citylights111 (talk · contribs), has now posted the following on their user talk:

"Hi there, I am part of Michael Theoklitos's management group and we feel that your summary of the events at Norwich are portraying Michael in a negative light. He does not appreciate them and feels that you have not stated the correct facts regarding both situations especially the Gillingham bus incident. This is not a true reflection of Michael as a professional and an individual, nor is it stating the truth about what actually occurred. If you could please respect our edits it would be much appreciated. Thank you"

A few things:

I'd welcome input from a BLP perspective on whether my reverts have been appropriate, ie if the negative material is adequately sourced (if not, I'm confident of finding other sources)
If my actions have been deemed correct, please could a previously uninvolved admin revert and consider protecting the article
In any case, please could a previously uninvolved admin deal with the COI editor

In the meantime, I'll request RS for Theoklitos' version of events of "the Gillingham bus incident"

Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found this source from Australia, where MT claims that ""I rolled up late for a match because I got my wires mixed up," ... "It’s not that I did not turn up but I was half an hour late."" Not sure that differs substantially from what the article says - he inexplicably missed the team bus. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the SPA shouldn't be censoring the article, and it does appear that they are tending to eliminate items that may be well-sourced but unflattering, the fact is that the reverted version of the article has its own BLP problems. There are substantial problems with tone and statements not verified in the articles. For instance, the claim that he missed the bus is in no way substantiated by the citations. The characterization of his debut as "disastrous" is a WP:NPOV issue. That said, be advised that you're both up against WP:3RR, and to the extent that Citylights is removing NPOV issues in a BLP, they might come out on top in a 3RR case at the moment. Rather than simple reverts, the article needs a good copyedit for tone and accuracy to sources. To avoid 3RR problems, it should probably be another editor that does it. I'll try to have a look later tonight. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably find some sources - this is a good starting point (the Norwich local football paper) - interestingly the first article describes his debut as being in "the disastrous 7-1 home defeat to Colchester United on the opening day of the season...". My gut feeling is that the version Dweller is reverting to isn't that far out of order - the language might use copy editing for sure, but I reckon most of it could be sourced and actually strikes me as a more or less fair representation of Theoklitos' time at Norwich. I'm not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss the clear COI issues that have (apparently) developed in this case. Anyway, I might have some time later in the week to take a look myself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add, because I don't know whether the ref is in the article just now, the match report from the Pink Un gave him 2/10. No one gets 2/10. Below 5 is an absolute disaster. That report describes his debut as "terrible". I didn't see it myself. Fortunately. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the information about the Gillingham game, but using neutral language. It's well-sourced, so there's no reason for it to be removed. I've also completed a general copy-edit of the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intervention. Incidentally, I don't think either of us came close to breaching WP:3RR. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Todd

New single-purpose account editor Deaftruth (talk · contribs) has been making numerous changes to Rob Todd recently. Many are puffery about Todd that are distinctively non-neutral, and typically lacking citations. [3] Of those that are cited, the "citations" are typically done disruptively, without care to match the article's citation style... or even <ref> tags, for that matter, and often use unacceptable sources. [4] These edits have frequently left the article a shambles. Some fly completely in the face of the cited source, and seem to be nothing but POV pushing. [5]

Further, Deaftruth has repeatedly removed from the article well-sourced, notable, but possibly embarrassing material, to wit: Todd, whose conservative "family values" stance went so far as to try and bust a condom store for selling edible panties without a food license, admitted in 2000 to having an extramarital affair with the wife of his fellow councilman. This was documented in the Houston Press,[6] which has previously been found to be a reliable source.[7] It was also mentioned in the Houston Chronicle, albeit in an editorial, so I had not included that reference in the article.[8] Deaftruth's edit statements argue that, as the article does not directly quote Todd as admitting to the affair, that the entire statement must be removed. That's not supportable by facts or by policy, and by omitting it, we would violate not only WP:NPOV but the BLP—which says we have to report fairly, including those facts that are well-sourced but potentially embarrassing.

I have tried to communicate with Deaftruth on his talk page [9] but the user has refused to engage in dialogue, whether on user talk pages or the article talk page. The only attempt at communication has been through terse edit comments as part of reverts. While reading these edit comments, I'm struck by how the structure and word choice of them mirror users Democratsunited (talk · contribs) (which may be a previous account, based on timeline and the fact that the name of that account was flagged as inappropriate) and Robertpercytodd (talk · contribs), apparently the subject of the article.

Would an admin please review this page and determine if a block is warranted for this user? I'd also welcome second opinions on the NPOV of this article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on Deaftruth, but I'm unpersuaded by your reasoning about including these allegations about his personal life. Certainly, our current writeup seems to push at the boundaries of what the sources report as fact. I'll write more at the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I've explained my reasoning for including the material, and the thoughts that went into the choice to include the material and the way I presented it, over at the talk page. Could you have a look and see if it helps, or if you can show me where our reasoning differs? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart and politician voting records

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Sandy Pasch and Talk:Jennifer Shilling, two Wisconsin politicians, about proper sourcing for a politician's voting record. With discussion also found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Tdl1060, the concern is about using two separate sources to make a novel conclusion, an apparent violation of WP:SYNTH. Here is the method:

A: A piece of legislation was reported in the news as notable.
B: A politician voted on it as seen in public records.
Therefore C: The politician's vote was notable.

The twist is that the 'B' part of the process involves not public records but Project Vote Smart, a voting records digest that has been used a lot for sourcing politicians' votes, and that is perhaps acceptable for establishing notability of the vote. For instance, this webpage describes a Wisconsin state bill called SB 2: Tax Benefits for Health Savings Accounts, as a "Key Vote", and it says Sandy Pasch voted 'no' on it. Project Vote Smart describes their own rationale for labeling a vote a "Key Vote" at this popup webpage, so apparently there is some oversight, some human selection applied by website volunteers or editors. I place little trust in VoteSmart's opaque in-house process and so I consider the votesmart.org voting records to be a primary source, failing to establish notability even with their "Key Vote" label. I would greatly prefer to see a politician's vote discussed in a news item or expert opinion column—widely read WP:SECONDARY sources which firmly establish notability.

So which is it? Does Project Vote Smart establish notability because they are a secondary source or are they a primary source, little more than a collection site for voting records? Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a secondary source - the primary source is the legislative record itself. Wikipedia articles frequently list "ratings" from various groups which are only marginally different from lists of votes. Collect (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: in this particular case, not every "Key Vote" is being included, which creates a problem with possible undue emphasis on votes which an editor feels will make the subject look particularly good or bad in the eyes of voters (both these people are candidates who may be up for election in a month or so). Listing all the votes, of course, is a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY violation. Also problematic has been the way in which votes are described (for good or ill). What to one partisan is "job creation through tax relief" to another is "payoffs to rich campaign contributors through tax giveaways". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As one who feels an article is in any way unbalanced can add other votes and opinions, the issue of balance is not a strong objection. Amazingly enough, we often list only a few issues for any politician, and not every single vote, so that is a non-starter. As for description of the votes, as long as the description is reasonably sourced, the same objection has the same remedy. In neither case is BLP a problem. Collect (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart probably wouldn't establish the notability of any given vote - but notability only delimits what topics can have articles of their own, not information can be included in an article. Kevin (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that PVS's assessment of a vote's status as "key" or "notable" is not reliable, but I also don't see that it's a concern. Most of these state-politician articles are short enough that a one-line mention of one vote can't possibly create an issue of undue weight as long as the mention is correctly sourced. Though I think Orangemike's comment should be kept in mind, I would support the inclusion of the content for now; if the article actually does turn into a directory, or conversely leave out votes some editors feel are important, that problem can be discussed when it arises, and POV phrasing can easily be corrected. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Broussard

This newly created article consists of one unreferenced sentence, pointing out that she is "involved in the Anthony Weiner Scandal." I put a BLP prod tag on it, because it is unreferenced, but really this has no chance of surviving because it is WP:BLP1E. Should this go straight to AfD, or ?. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was just redirected to the scandal article. Should the redirect go to AfD, or is that sufficient? First Light (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is under discussion at AFD and looks like being kept. As the redirect seems to be a plausible search time I don't any problem with keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I notice that her name finally appears in the article (it wasn't there when I first posted this), so it is much more plausible now. First Light (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yon

He's complaining on facebook that this entry is libelous. Here is the entire thread on facebook.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some attempts to correct the worst problems with the article, and left a note on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How bad was it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not very bad as such things go, but not good. The crux of it is that Yon is quite outspoken and has been involved in disagreements with parts of the U.S. military hierarchy, and in disagreements with popular military blogs. Most of the section about his disagreements with the blogs was sourced to the blogs themselves, i.e. to the other party in the disagreement. There was also some wondrously non-neutral wording of that section, for example not just stating that he'd said negative things about some people, but characterising his opponents as "serving soldiers and their spouses" ... which of course is disingenuous appeal to emotion, because I'm sure a lot of his supporters are serving soldiers or their spouses, too. Plus, some of the speculation about him from his opponents was decidedly derogatory, and the article was repeating that speculation and attributing it to those opponents (the blogs) without citing an intervening secondary source.

And of course the section was not really WP:DUE WEIGHT because his notability is as a war reporter, not as a blogosphere warrior. (Although the blogs controversy has been covered by at least one reliable source.)

Quickly reading over the rest of the article, there was at least one instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being used to imply something negative. There could be more like that still in there; I believe Yon has been asked to mention on the talk page any outstanding concerns about the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous work. I wish I had time to help out on this one... possibly I will get a few minutes to review it later this week. Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist?

At Bruno Breguet I reverted an edit referring to Carlos the Jackal which had changed 'terrorist' to 'political militant' (note I see this as a pov edit among other things). I reverted it saying sources call him a terrorist, but the same editor has restored his edit saying "diots like George Bush use the term--a more academic definition is prudent in an encyclopedia". I notice also that 'Carlos' was called a terrorist until this [10] relatively recent edit when he became a militant. Looking at a Google search for books [11] and one for news [12] I strongly dispute the idea that we should refer to him as a militant of any kind rather than the way the sources refer to him, as a terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could give relevant weight to both opinions - as long as they are cited. Clearly there are multiple reliables to say that he was considered a terrorist by many - are there and citations that call him a militant? We could also use attribution - who is it that considers him to be a militant? note - I left User:Petey Parrot - a note regarding this thread and requested he come here to make his case. In notice Carlos the Jackal in the lede of his article is referred to as a "Venezuelan militant" but that in the body of that article is the content — "Swiss terrorist Bruno Breguet" - I also note that Carlos the jackal is included in this cat People imprisoned on charges of terrorism - Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we certainly can. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, look to the NYT [13] the international terrorism brand known as Carlos the Jackal, Although the terrorist born Ilich Ramírez Sánchez preaches his own gospel in “Carlos" [14] etc. for recent wording about him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think something like "referred to as a terrorist" would be weaseling, suggesting he might not be one. Of course supporters of any form of terrorism will normally (but not always) try to claim they aren't terrorists, but I think that's irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster and others, please refer to guidelines such as WP:WTA before giving out incorrect advice. We really strive to avoid direct "so-and-so is a terrorist" phrasings in favor of a general description of the person/group followed by who or what has classified them as terrorists, for what reasons, etc... Look at the leads of Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda for examples. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not in his article but in an article about an associate, which says "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the left-wing political militant Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal"." - 'militant' used to read 'terrorist'. The change is I think pov. So are you saying we should say an associate of the convicted murder Ilich etc?. I'll add that for the examples you give, I think the word 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' should appear in the first paragraph, and I'm not convinced they are all good examples. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in the first paragraph is fine, in the way I stated; none of them do, or should, begin with "So-and-so is a terrorist". In this specific case, though, is a descriptor really needed? Just say "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka "Carlos the Jackal". The nickname is sufficiently famous enough to let the reader know what's going on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTA doesn't put it this way, but I think for accuracy it is best to clearly distinguish the sin from the sinner. The noun "terrorist" makes the sinner the embodiment of the sin, so that he is defined wholly and completely by it. This is inaccurate; even the worst user of terrorist acts is not just a terrorist. So avoid the noun "terrorist" and use the adjective "terrorist" (to describe acts) or "terrorism" (also to describe acts). Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Evans (meteorologist)

There is a situation developing at this article. Apparently the subject has been using several accounts to edit the article, including the removal of trivia which has in some cases been reverted. See WT:COI/N#Bill Evans (meteorologist). Hans Adler 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I tweaked up the global denialist accusation to make it a bit more NPOV- its a bit much to label him as a denialist from a single two line comment in reply to a magazine article. I am minded to remove some of the uncited also but have not done it yet. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop re-inserting this; however, Evans has made other, similar statements in his blog. Further discussion on Talk:Bill Evans (meteorologist)#Global warming position. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graham

Resolved

– appears to have been a false claim and the IP user was blocked after a similar violation by User:MisterRPGnow at Bill Slavicsek - connected ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bill Slavicsek

I believe content being added is vandalism and a BLP violation, but I'm looking for a second set of eyes before I revert again. Content is being added about a political talk show hosts view on Dungeon & Dragons, and the sources cited don't back it up.[15] The IP so far has ignored taking it to the talk page. Just looking for a confirmation that this should be treated as vandalism and not a valid content dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left User:107.3.67.184 - a note with a link to this thread. Perhaps the user is trying to link to some content in a thread at that webforum but its only linking to the front page - anyways its not a reliable source - a web forum http://nerdtrek.com/nerdtalk is not a WP:RS even if it did have any of the claimed content in it.so the addition is presently uncited and seemingly contentious. I am not sure I would describe it as vandalism, is the user aspparently attempting to improve the wikipedia and add some content ...? Yes could well be the answer. Is it a BLP violation ... well it is contentious uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it more difficult to believe it's an attempt at a constructive edit, but it may be because I've heard the program. The subject is a conservative political talk host. I suppose theoreticaly he could have an opinion on the quality comparison of various D&D games, but I think it's far more likely that it's 'add nonsense info and laugh' type vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having not heard it or even heard of the subject I will happily defer to your deeper understanding/judgement in that regard CL. Anyways, the user has been notified and its quite likely he/she won't replace it without discussion again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to have stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Top

Hi. The article on dutch actor/presenter Ronald Top has a reference to to actress Vivian Leigh. She died in 1967 and is unlikely to have known the entertaining Mr Top. I assume there's another Leigh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.132.238 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the actress - a writer/producer. The source seems to be www.ronaldtop.com. I cannot find a record of a writer/producer Vivian Leigh. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tammet

A couple of users - or perhaps the same person under a couple of aliases - Bill121212 in particular, persist in adding contentious and poorly-sourced claims into the article in spite of earlier warnings from editor Off2riorob. The user/s ignore all warnings in their advancement of what amounts to a tiny minority conspiracy theory viewpoint.

Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons clearly state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This has been going on, in bouts, for a couple of months at least. Please provide whatever level of editorial warning/protection appropriate to prevent an edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also 12Bill. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article for three days in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Please proceed along the straight and narrow path of WP:DR. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic dispute appears to be on the one side that Tammet is a Savant and Bill appears to be wanting to add weight to the claim that Tammet is more of a "memory man" - I have never seen anything reliable to support that position but if Bill wants to present his reliable externals we can look at them and see about adding something? I looked at the sources and thought a bit of undue weight and original 2 plus 2 must equal 4 research was being given to the memory man claims from a few comments Tammet had made about his early life. There seems to be only two people editing the article and one of them appears to know Tammet quite well. The issue has been going back and forward for quite a while now - we should look at adding a small comment about it, that is acceptable to both users to resolve the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism) RfC

Uninvolved eyes would be much appreciated at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunderson (artist)

This article is for an unoriginal student painter that is not recognized by anyone but himself and the pompous school he attends. might have made the page himself or by his sidekick. either way, hope to save him the embarrassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr8585 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nominated for deletion. Your comments are a bit over the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General portals in BLP articles

There's a fairly aggressive IP who believes the Bomer article should have a See also section with the following links and portals: Lists of actors, List of people from Texas, Portal:Biography, Portal:Film, Portal:Television, and Portal:Theatre. Without knowing anything about guidelines or policy, my immediate reaction was the whole thing was screwy - or to put it more formally, unhelpful to the article. So, I removed the section. The IP put it all back in with an edit summary that read: "portals are standard on artticle; take to talk page before removing again. or take up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Contents/Portals)."

With respect to the links (not the portals), they are duplicative of the categories in the articles, which include 20th century actors, 21st century actors, Actors from Texas, American stage actors - and the list of cats goes on. So, what's the point of having pointers to these generic lists?

As for the portals, I looked at WP:Portal, as well as some brief discussions about the use of portals and found nothing illuminating. Certainly, the IP's claim that it's "standard" is totally unsupported. I've seen very few actor articles with these portals.

To me, this is a global issue, which is why I chose to come here rather than bring it up on on the Bomer Talk page. I also don't feel like bringing it up on every different portal Talk page, although I have considered raising it in the Actors and Filmmakers project.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted this to the project in the hope of getting some responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveon Rogers

Resolved

– Phantomsteve has deleted the hoax article. Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with misinformation. Traveon Rogers has never achieved what is listed in this article. Rogers is notorious in the track and field world for his self-aggrandizing efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.220.152 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've DB-Hoax'ed it, none of the references appear to mention him. Google doesn't really turn up anything significant, seems like a high school prank. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Phantomsteve has now deleted. Thanks to him, we can mark this closed. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

Problematic Edits with Santorum (neologism) Article, violations of WP:BLP, WP:NEO

We have several editors who are continually reverting changes in the Santorum (neologism) where they are introducing significant bias into this already contentious article. Discussion was requested by one of these editors and I agreed with that suggestion, with BLP being something to strongly err in favor of, however, it seems that the biased editing is going to continue unabated.

This article likens a certain former US Senator to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Several editors seem intent on saying this is a sourced article and therefore feel that they can ignore BLP concerns, but many editors including Mr. Wales have expressed severe misgiving with this attitude. A request for rename is in progress, as are several other proposals, and it seems all one can do to keep some degree of balance in the article. Please help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: In any of the multiple versions of the article that I have read, there is nothing that likens the senator to anything frothy. It uses the word "santorum" for that mixture, but never says that the senator himself is. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mr. Santorum then? See Equivocation. -- Avanu (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, From Dan Savage's SpreadingSantorum.com website: "Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum". So yeah, I can totally see how there's zero connection. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected [16] until 07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC) by Fastily. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rubin

Resolved

– reliable source for death added

It seems clear that Alan Rubin probably has indeed died but I don't see a verifiable source yet. Two good-faith IP editors are keen to update the article; I've reverted it twice. Is this sensible or should I just accept that the information is probably correct, and just let it go, on the grounds that if not verifiable now it probably will be soon? I'd be grateful for some advice from those more experienced in these matters. Apologies f this enquiry is in the wrong place - please feel free to point me elsewhere if appropriate. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention here, but that's probably not a RS. Regretably, they don't mention their source. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A death assertion in an article should be backed up by a reliable source, no matter how "likely" it is that it's true. I agree with Ravensfire that the Blues Brothers website is not sufficiently reliable, particularly for this sort of claim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If anyone wanted to watchlist the article too, so I felt less like a lone vigilante and more like a normal editor, I'd be very grateful! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After repeated uncited insertions User:Bongwarrior has WP:Semi-protected the article till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm in little doubt that a citeable source will emerge (I'm watching http://www.trumpetguild.org/news/news.htm for example) but for the moment I'm glad we can try to stick to doing it properly. It's difficult to explain to people who know what they know, of course, but it is clearly the best we can do. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:other wikis. In DE he's dead, using the fansite reference (above) that we've decided is not an RS. In IT he's dead but there's no reference given. In FR, PL, PT and SV there's no mention. Surely something must emerge soon that is usable? DBaK (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source has been found for this death claim. Alan Rubin obituay (latimes) - Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks, all, for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Worst actress in Hollywood"

So there is a user going around calling actors the "worst actor/actress in Hollywood" based on a magazine article. I can't be bothered to deal with it any further, so I am bringing it to attention on here. The articles in question are Jennifer Love Hewitt, Chuck Norris and Mike Leigh. Nymf _hideliho! 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the additions for all three articles (they were putting it in the lede) and the editor has been blocked for 31 hours.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've also did this to Dennis Dugan. Another editor has moved it out of the lede and into the body which I think is probably fine.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the living person about whom this bio was written. In the past it has been defaced with a Hit_ler photo, and with sexual perversion text, but at this present time it is being altered en-masse, IMO defaced, by editors WLU and/or Ronsword. I have reverted the edits made earlier today, listed the problems on the TALK page, and an Admin has come by suggesting I post the difficulties to this noticeboard, before a reversion war starts.

The specific policy which is being violated is that editors WLU, and/or Ronsword, are adding incorrect factual information to a BLP, and removing relevant factual information, without first discussing the issues on the TALK page, in order to reach an editorial consensus.

The result is that my character and contributions to Science are being demeaned.

I hope somebody can help, because honestly, I have better things to do than answering a flood of emails from people wanting to know what has happened to my Wikipedia Bio.

Sincerely
Trevor Marshall
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Murdoch University, Western Australia
Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, a California 501(c)3 corporation
Trevmar (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the Trevor_Marshall:TALK page WLU has now claimed that he is Prof Trevor Marshall, and not me, and has said that a Nature Publishing Group peer-reviewed paper is not reliable, or something like that, along with a number of other claims. More important, he has reverted the bio to his demeaning and factually incorrect edits of earlier today. Would somebody please help get the bio back to the situation it has been in for the past few months. A number of things that earlier editors have written are not completely correct, presumably they can be corrected by consensus, but this WLU is something altogether beyond my comprehension. Trevmar (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and I have asked for clarification, as it is rather concerning. Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding his comment.

Trevmar, would you prefer that the Wikipedia article about you merely be deleted, to avoid misleading information being published? I do not claim that this is definitely possible, but it is one alternative that might be possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, thanks for your help. I was speaking at a conference in China last year and one of the audience turned around their laptop proudly, and there was my Wikipedia bio on the display. Wikipedia is an important "go to" source for information about notable individuals. I think that it is valuable for the public to be able to read about my work, even when quite a lot is missing, as has been the case for the last few months. In fast-moving scientific fields IMO there needs to be a more reliable method to update, especially, for example, published papers, rather than rely upon a knowledgeable editor chancing across the bio page. I would not like the bio to be deleted, especially if such a move was precipitated by some form of victimization, as seems to be the case at the moment. The article did survive a deletion attempt on Christmas Day (approx) in 2007. Trevmar (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to require patience. I have explained at Talk:Trevor Marshall that WLU was jokingly pointing out that any editor can claim to be a certain person, and we cannot insert or remove text based on what an editor says (even if it were proven that an editor were the named person, we still cannot base an article on what they say; ask if an explanation is wanted, but that is the situation).

There are two issues: (1) Statements about the person Trevor Marshall, and (2) statements about MP (the "Marshall protocol", a hypothesis regarding a treatment for a disease apparently with an unknown cause). Any problems re (1) should be easy to remedy, but (2) is unlikely to be resolvable (except that extreme statements can be cleaned up). There is a strong resistance to material which seeks to provide an "alternative" to mainstream science or medicine. Generally, that is essential to resist outright nonsense (sungazing) and dubious science (cold fusion).

It's best to focus on one small issue at a time, and I suggest working on (1). It would help if someone took the time to post an example of text in the article that is a problem and briefly explain why. If there is a reliable source to support a correction, that can easily be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the later part of the article about (1), seems to be hijacked for the purpose of making negative statements about (2). Did reliable secondary sources make statements about Marshall's statements about (2)? Yes or no? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I expressed a hope that "someone" would post an example is that I have not yet looked at the article other than to quickly determine the nature of the situation. In short: I don't know. Your new suggest at the article talk is the obvious solution: if secondary sources cover the MP issue, report what they say; if the don't, omit the issue (and either way, editors should not look for contrary evidence themselves, although it would not be satisfactory to use a weak source that may suggest some non-mainstream view has greater status than it has, simply because no good sources have taken the trouble to publish a review). Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU does not seem to even be able come to grips with the fact that I hold an academic position in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a recognized university. He wants to call me "an Australian electrical engineer." That is as accurate as saying I am 'a High School Student' - yes, I was a High School Student once, but describing me in that way is totally misleading as to what I do right now. The revision of the bio as of two days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Marshall&oldid=426070322 , as accumulated by a number of editors over the last four years or so, and before WLU rewrote it into the current mess, is a reasonable description of reality, and a good point from which to start editing. I apologize that I have been sleeping through these last couple of hours of discussion, I am based in California and it is midnight now. Trevmar (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revision just reverted to by Off2riorob, revision 433471713, is equivalent to the revision I mentioned above. Thanks, Off2riorob Trevmar (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith WP:AGF in your position and I have seen so many times anyone so called fringe have their biographies here negatively portrayed by some users that are against anything fringe - fringe on wikipediia means you will get negatively edited. I can't guarantee your WP:NPOV edits and my revertion to them will be respected. I suggest you keep open your discussion/complaint with the foundation. Although at least now after this report there are uninvolved users watching and examining the article and its edits. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen WP:AGF before, so I will apologize for naming WLU specifically. Let's hope the reversion remains stable enough so that a variety of editors can work on the text over the next week or two. I note that citation 4, which used to be to a critical journal article, has gotten scrambled over the last year or so, I can try and help by pointing to things like this, but on the other hand, some will think I am interfering by doing so. Better to just observe the process, I guess. Trevmar (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to edit your own article - although not exactly against policy it is recommended. I understand you felt it nessesary after the recent major alteration of weight and focus to your wikipedia biography which you dispute. You are very welcome to provide assistance and any WP:RS you are aware of to help support any additions or disputed content on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, I have placed a number of journal sources on the Talk page this morning. I am a scientist, I now move in a non-Wikipedia world, and don't have a slew of wikipedia editors I can write to, asking them to take these sources and make the bio into a balanced article. Still, as you suggest, I have posted these Reliable Sources, let's hope that WP editors process them with the respect they deserve. Trevmar (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put some preliminary notes at Talk:Trevor Marshall#Recent changes; more work is needed. Further discussion should probably occur at the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with factual errors about Marshall's life being corrected, but we need reliable sources rather than the word of the individual. If he has a bio page at the university, that would probably work. However, regarding the protocol, I'm much less interested in there being extensive coverage of a topic based on computer modelling and anecdotes, particularly when there are fairly obvious dangers to patients (rickets and antibiotic resistant bacteria are the top two). If Trevmar wants to point out factual inaccuracies and substantiate them with reference to reliable sources, I will correct the errors and omissions myself, or support anyone else doing so. However, if he wants to provide a positive, glowing description of his hypothetical cure, I do not think that's a good idea and must ask him to wait until it has gained greater acceptance and is widely used to treat, well, anything, per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WLU, I have spent several hours writing to you via the WP:Trevor_Marshall:Talk page, explaining the science, explaining that antibiotics are not described as the primary intervention in our most recent Nature.com paper (which you rejected as 'unreliable) yet you adhere to the above conclusion about "rickets and antibiotic resistant bacteria" which are not founded in either science or fact. You do not have to rely on the word of any one individual, although it appears that your recent edits have had a chilling effect on those editors who had previously been contributing to the bio. WP policy clearly defers to university-based peer-reviewed scientific papers as primary sources, why did you prefer to trust a blog, from a Dr Crislip, who has never spoken with me, did not check his facts before writing his blog, and did not correct those errors which were brought to his attention? There are many of our peer-reviewed papers out there now, and a growing level of professional acceptance. Every month or two I am invited to Chair a session, or present a paper, at a major mainstream medical conference. The video records of many of those presentations can be found on the Foundation's YouTube channel. I really am a real scientist. Why do you not grant me the respect that WP:BLP suggests might be appropriate? Trevmar (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} Help me, please. In recent days my wikipedia bio has drastically changed from an essentially neutral POV to one that makes me seem like the worst kind of unscientific cretin. If the purpose of the bio is to explain my contributions and ideas, then it is currently a failure. The recent edits are not consistent with the way my work is being received in the scientific community at large. Compare, for example, a review such as that contained in 'Future Medicine' reviewing my keynote (and that of Nobel laureate Avram Hershko) at WCG-2008

I am not against the inclusion of unflattering critiques of my work provided they are from reliable sources, but the current version has no balance. How can we get the bio back to something more stable, such as the version of 26 April? That still needs to be cleaned and updated, but if WP editors were free to do that for a couple of weeks, without the chilling effect of WLU, it surely should be possible to produce a more neutral and informative article? How do we move forward from here? Trevmar (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not guarantee the right to respect. Neutral means "as represented in the relevant expert community" per WP:NPOV. Conferences are not considered WP:MEDRS. The "chilling effect" you have linked to is the result of a specific arbitration case, and is discussing the lack of civility of the involved parties. I've never been uncivil, though I have consistently disagreed with your interpretation of the state of the science while referencing the appropriate policies and guidelines. It's not a BLP concern if the subject of an article doesn't have a positive or favourable description of his protocol on wikipedia. It could be a neutrality concern if it were demonstrated that I was consistently dismissing valid, peer-reviewed, independent, secondary sources that supported your work - but there doesn't seem to be any. Popular discussions, conference abstracts and youtube videos, and articles co-authored by yourself and your research group doesn't help demonstrate that most scientists who are experts in the field take your ideas seriously. Independent, secondary, peer-reviewed (or otherwise MEDRS) sources that favourably discuss your ideas would help, if you can provide them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Nowitzki

The description of Dirk Nowitzki as "removed vandalism quotation" which appears at the beginning of the bio could be taken as offensive. If there is any other way to take it, then I am ignorant of the reference.

It was transient vandalism that looks like it was caught and reverted by cluebot within a few seconds of being posted. If you noticed it, you just had really lucky timing. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Complaints about the vandalism with direct quotation of the vandalism were made on the talk page for the article, even quite a bit after it was reverted. I have removed all direct quotation of the vandalism from both the talk page and the original complaint here. I am normally loathe to edit others comments, but with four different editors showing up on the article talk page directly quoting vandalism that was up for <10 seconds, I figured something was up and decided refactoring the comments was worth it. Kevin (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Armstrong

Resolved

– no specific BLP issue reported - the reporter User:Sleetman was blocked for 72hours for warring/3RR

Was wondering if any administrators or users could tell me whether this version of Karen Armstrong's Wikipedia page [19] violates any BLP guidelines. Sleetman (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Sleetman was blocked for edit-warring on this article a couple of weeks ago, and his first edits coming off the block include attempts to peddle the same stuff he was pushing when he got blocked. BLP isn't the only issue here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem - an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it. [20] Readers should note that I was blocked for edit-warring, not for adding content that was contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Readers should also note that Nomoskedasticity is by no means an ideologically neutral editor especially in the context of edits on Armstrong's Wikipedia-page.Sleetman (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look the article does seem very promotional. Apart from that, what is the specific BLP issue? Off2riorob (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main BLP issue is that the sources under Armstrong's reception section as unreliable sources.Sleetman (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleetman has argued here that the International Journal of Middle East Studies, a journal published by Cambridge University Press, is not a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty reliable to me, especially with attribution. WP:RSN would be the place to confirm that. Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we can agree. RSN is unnecessary -- it's a peer-reviewed academic journal. Anyway, Sleetman is now blocked again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Garamendi

- John Garamendi - privacy of family members

Am I right to remove this information about the daughter of an article's subject? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, under BLP that seems totally reasonable - the article isn't about her and she is a private person. Off2riorob (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with its removal. It's easy for BLP's to get coatrack-itis. Good edit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not notable to the biography (and not notable enough on its own). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cameron

I first got involved in this article when it was listed on this noticeboard last month. I appear to have waded into a dispute about whether certain comments by journalists are encyclopedic and relevant to the article, along with some older reliable source issues. Since my impartiality is now being impugned by different IPs (Versageek identified it as a sockfarm in the earlier listing here, but I'm not sure if this is the same thing), I'd appreciate some checks on my edits here. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was semiprotected for 3 months; I don't think there's much else to do here. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Solomon

Evan Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was recently subjected to a nasty piece of vandalism ([21]). It's already been cleaned up, but I'd like to ask if anybody can keep some eyes on the article for a short time in case it returns, please. :) Because of the faked source, it may not be as easily recognized as vandalism by regular recent change patrollers. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice - the article now has a permanent place on my watchlist. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --Maggie Dennis (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also watchlisted - Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gigabyte (virus writer)

Has anyone dealt with something like this before? It describes someone who is obviously a living person. The person is only identified by a pseudonym (although the real name is out there on the web if you look hard enough as is a personal website suggesting they've put this part of their life behind them). The article itself lacks inline citations and was copied from some wikia project. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an unsourced mess. It has NO inline sources (tagged since 2009). Many of the sources listed in the Sources section didn't work (I removed). You'd have to go back and forth between the sources and the body to determine whether the body's assertions are supported. The tone of the article is unencyclopedic. Some of the assertions (her arrest) create BLP problems. Others are POV. I've gutted the article, put a note on the Talk page, and will nominate it for deletion if nothing is done.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle of Mudd, Notes section

A person came into IRC-Help asking for the spelling of the Puddle of Mudd's original drummer's last name to be corrected. In the course of my subsequent research, I came across the name being spelled as both Burkett and as Burkitt. The person claimed they were this man and that the name was actually spelled with an i. Since the name was spelled both ways in various sources, the only proof I could find of the spelling was in a legal/primary document. I therefore added a Note to Puddle of Mudd citing the court case document of BURKITT v. FLAWLESS RECORDS. I know that in most cases WP:PRIMARY applies but this is the only way I could see to prove the spelling of this person's last name. I would like to have a consensus regarding if this is the proper course on this spelling issue. Thanks,Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the docket for the name in the notes but remove the link to the docket.

Done - Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast, I'll take a look to see how it was done. Thanks! Shearonink (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic rationale I used is that citations do not have to be accessible only, to exist, and as the legal details in the external are not relevant to the article content at all it is preferable and not necessary to include such a docket. I forget where the actual policy/guideline would be, oh yes - as you mentioned - WP:primary - Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Scott

Hillary Scott Porn Star

The opening paragraph of the Hillary Scott article has the sentence, "In a 2005 interview, she stated she has social anxiety disorder." I believe this should be deleted for both its implausibility and the source is a sensationalistic interview with many other dubious claims. The implausibility of Ms. Scott suffering from social anxiety disorder relates to her activity. Since late 2004, she has made over 500 porno films, appeared on numerous awards programs, television and radio shows as well as attending porno conventions. I have counseled a number of patients with social anxiety disorder and behavior such as hers is simply impossible for someone that has social anxiety disorder. I would also point out that Ms. Scott doesn't seem to have repeated any statement about having social anxiety disorder.

Nevertheless, my deletion of Hilary Scott's remark has not been allowed because its a "professional opinion" that constitutes "original research." I'm not attempting to diagnose Ms. Scott and don't see how this involves "original research." Even if it is, I think the source is dubious enough that the social anxiety disorder comment should be removed on those grounds. This comment has been repeated numerous times on the internet with Wikipedia sometimes listed as its source. I think its sad for Wikipedia to be such a source of disinformation about social anxiety disorder. I'd appreciate some advice on this matter.TL36 (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big question here is whether "Deviant Cult X" is a reliable source. Personally I rather think it isn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is in the article/interview. On the en wikipedia the "Deviant Cult X" website is only used in the one article to support this single claim. Off2riorob (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my lack of knowledge about Wikipedia rules but I'm uncertain about the meaning of "'Deviant Cult X' website is only used in the one article to support this single claim" as far as it concerns that website's reliability. Is there any resolution to this matter?TL36 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That means from the hundreds of thousands of articles on this wikipedia that is the only one that links to that Deviant cult X website - this suggests a fringe website with low reliability added by the fact that the website appears to no longer exists, if you were to challenge it and remove it as not a WP:RS supporting and a personal illness claim it is doubtful if anyone would replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the support.TL36 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names on radio/tv station/network articles

DWFM and GMA News and Public Affairs are typical examples, long lists of names with no sources or articles. Some might be hoaxes, how do we know? I think for various reasons they don't belong, but I'm asking about possible BLP issues. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This came up a while ago and the outcome was to remove them and that it was plenty to add a link to the bio section on the radio/TV station website. Another solution I personally have used is to move them to the talkpage and request a reliable citation to replace individual names - such uncited lists of names without wikipedia articles attract drive by false additions which are undetectable. Off2riorob (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment

Talk page comment by User:Zero0000 - "Ghengis Khan looks extreme left from where Caroline Glick sits"

An editor has opined that Caroline Glick is even more to the extreme right than Ghengis Khan, without an accompanying reference or explanation: diff. I asked him to withdraw the statement, per WP:BLPTALK, but to no avail. Can a contributor draw an unsubstantiated comparison between a living person and Ghengis Khan (or, for that matter, Stalin or Hitler), or does it qualify as "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices"?—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its on the edge, personally imo - its a violation of WP:BLPTALK - comparing one of our living subjects to Ghengis Khan is excessive, undue and unnecessary in all ways. - however the comment could be taken as tongue in cheek and also on the least public of spaces, your comment may have given him a nudge for the future. You have asked him to strike it out and he hasn't so I personally would let this one go, request him to be a bit more cautious in comparisons he makes in regard to living people in future. Off2riorob (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To the right of Ghengis Khan" is a standard expression (more than 90,000 hits in Google) and just means someone is quite far to the right. It isn't really a comparison with Ghengis Khan (what basis of comparison could exist between a medieval Mongol conqueror and a modern journalist?). The fact that the journalist in question is quite far to the right is not a secret or at all controversial, but is something that most people familiar with the journalist would agree with. Even the editor of her newspaper used her name to exemplify the right edge of his newspaper's contributors ("I run a center-right paper, which invites contributions from all sides - from Naomi Chazan to Caroline Glick"; Jerusalem Post, 5 December 2003). I don't think that referring to someone as left-wing or right-wing on a talk page is a violation of WP:BLPTALK. Zero^talk 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about the Google hit count since I can't spell; actually it is over 400,000. Zero^talk 09:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google smoogle results do not make such comparisons ok here. -Its not a violation to say a right wing person is a right wing person, so if you simply strike the unnecessary comparison part about the mass murderer and this is easily resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write anything about mass murder, that is your incorrect interprettation. I used a common expression with a well-known meaning. I don't see there is anything to resolve here. Zero^talk 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many common expressions (I will take your word for that) are insults and designed to demean, the fact that it is a common insult does not make it ok to use in reference to a living person on wikipedia. You stated this living subject of one of our article is more right wing than a person from history with extremely negative connotations. Why don't you make yourself the bigger person and simply strike it. Off2riorob (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to discuss the reliability of a source for a claim that someone is extreme left, it is not inappropriate to express an opinion that said source is extreme right. If we cannot say things like that, we cannot discuss the reliability and objectiveness of sources. I'm sure there are thousands of such opinions expressed on talk pages; judging the biases of sources is something we have to do or else we can't judge our compliance with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Expressing the opinion using a common colloquialism was not necessary, but I don't see that any line was crossed. It is similar to calling someone a "crusader" (the Crusaders were also mass murderers). You can see the meaning of the expression according to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English here. Finally, thank you for your opinion of how big I am. Zero^talk 09:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a citation that suggests she is in any way comparable to the mass murderer do you? I didn't say how big you are, I said two users are objecting to the comparison and that you could make yourself bigger by just removing or striking the comparison. I don't agree with any of your claims that your comment is fine, but as you are clearly refusing to strike it there is little more to discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<= Assuming this is about a potential BLPTALK violation against Glick rather than the people of Mongolia, Zero is obviously not literally saying that Glick even more to the extreme right than Ghengis Khan (and assuming that is meant to be bad), he's not suggesting that Glick has killed anyone or committed any crimes at all, or claimed that she said something that she didn't say, or that she lied about her age, gender, sexuality, business dealings, a respected human rights group etc etc without a source. That would be the kind of "contentious material" the policy is addressing. Zero is using a colorful expression to communicate with adults to convey information in the way adults do when they talk with eachother. No possible harm whatsoever can come to Glick (or the people of Mongolia) from what Zero said. BLP is there to protect living people from actual harm. There's no policy based reason for Zero to strike the statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of smart comments to support such on the edge insults/violations. What about the poor people of Mongolia etc, clearly there will be no damage done to the living subject, its more what you want this place (en wikipedia) to be, more related to WP:not talk forum and general disruptive comments. While you are happy to support vague insults about someone you sit on the opposite side of the table to, supporting that also allows and encourages the people you respect being insulted as well - and then yourself being insulted in a "humorous" way also. The short story is, it was unnecessary, undue, it was complained about in good faith by two users and its removal would not even have altered the statement. One person's "colorful expression" is another man's insult and sitting on the line of that position is divisive and disruptive to constructive discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Mongolians are going to be upset because someone said there's someone more to the right than their dead leader? I'm so confused... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Ignoring objections like this is far more important than taking them seriously even if it makes working with some editors more difficult. Doing something in good faith doesn't validate it and mean that it should be taken seriously. If it did, the evolution article would be a piece of crap in no time at all rather than a featured article. There was no disruption or harm to anyone caused by this. It was a discussion on my talk page with an editor who actually did violate a mandatory policy in a very obvious and serious way. It wasn't obvious to him because he's inexperienced. I think that has been resolved. That's the important issue here. Biosketch wasn't even involved in the discussion. And this isn't about what I personally agree with or who I respect in the real world. I don't mind if someone insults someone I respect or even personally attacks me on my talk page if it helps me to understand their position and especially if it's funny. People have different views on issues like this but they shouldn't be trying to impose their views on others. Diversity is a strength in Wikipedia, conflicting opinions are inevitable and that's good for healthy, open debate about the content, policy implementation etc. I will say this, if it had been me that made the statement I wouldn't strike it even if hundreds of editors raised good faith objections because it isn't a policy violation. It's as simple as that. Policy trumps everything and it's essential that it remains that way even if some people get upset about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quade Cooper

Quade Cooper is described in the initial paragraph as a 'hori' This is an offensive, racist,and derogatory term for a Maori. It is similar to calling an AfroAmerican a nigger! Please deal with it .

I have not heard of this word before but from what I have seen online it does seem to be offensive so I have removed the statement. Next time you see something like that you can be bold and remove it yourself by hitting the "edit" button at the top of the page, but make sure you explain your change in the edit summary. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jai McDowall

somone has replaced the pictures and bio with derogatory comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.99.189 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed now - Seems to be basic vandalism, the recent history shows a fair bit of the same. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludacris

Under his information, his instrument is listed as "Big Black Cock." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.68.128 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - typical vandal addition. Removed... Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn - Victim's Name

What's the policy on putting in sourced information about the victim's (just assume it's alleged every time I say it) name? I reverted an editor who added the victim's name and other identifying information to the article based on a French source. I didn't check the source, but assuming it's reliable, was I right to revert? I also posted something on the editor's Talk page. I don't believe that American media are publishing the victim's name based on the rape shield law, but we live in a world where countries, uh, disagree, and I don't feel very sure of my ground here as to Wikipedia's policy, if there is one, on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On general principles, wikipedia would not be bound by any specific nation's restrictions, leaving us free to consider identification in terms of BLP. I think that at this stage of the legal process, there would have to be strong reasons as well as strong sources for the naming of the complainant, and since in this case WP:1E would apply, I think you were right to remove it. Martinlc (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree -- this is a person with no public profile. If she starts selling her story, then fine (and more power to her -- something good for her should come from this), but until then there's no enclopedic interest in using her name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if French law doesn't have a similar victim shield. However, it probably doesn't extend to those cases in foreign jurisdictions. John lilburne (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly doesn't violate anything Wran (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases with a victim we always err on the side of caution - in such situations I suggest we follow the BBC - one of the most respected and responsible sources - if the BBC names her then we can look at it again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is reported in the French media, then it should be reported. Wikipedia coverage of the event and accusations are incompletely because they do not reflect the information available. There is no legal reason not to mention her name and bibliographic details and it is noteworthy and therefore is clearly an "enclopedic interest" to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.229.2 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is US law on reporting the name of an alleged rape victim, and where are the WP servers located? John lilburne (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't researched the issue, but I don't believe there is any law in the United States prohibiting the publication of a rape victim's identity. Or any law that is still on the books has been declared unconstitutional when challenged. The U.S. media do not generally publish the victim's name as a matter of practice, not as an obligation. Also, to whatever extent there are such laws in the U.S., they would probably be state-by-state rather than a federal law. Finally, where WP's servers are located (I believe they are in Florida and in the Netherlands, but that's based on a recollection of something someone told me), may not have any bearing on any legal liability WP has for "publishing" such information. The whole thing, like most legal issues, is rather complicated, and I don't think I'd hang my hat on the proposition that Wikipedia is legally prohibited from reporting the identity of a rape victim. Just my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more of a BLP issue than a legal one at this point. WP:BLPNAME recommends caution in identifying individuals in relation to a single event and specifies that appearance in news media does not necessarily mean inclusion here ("when deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media ... should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.") January (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both there BBb23 and January, as I understand it is not illegal in the server location or the US in general - as I remember a couple of the quality responsible publishers in the US follow the same kind of victim protection procedures as the BBC and Wikipedia. Its more of an editorial decision based in a desire to report responsibility and is in general supported in policy. Off2riorob (talk)

I also believe there are some commonsense relevancy issues here. This is an article about an American prosecution of a person charged with attempted rape. The victim's name and her background are hardly relevant to anything in the article. Prior to trial, if her lawyers or responsible American media begin talking about it, then, if it's otherwise relevant, we can report on it. But at this point, regardless of the BLP issues, which, of course, are important, it doesn't make sense to include it. Also, a small quibble with Rob - I'd rather not go on record now as supporting inclusion of the victim's identity just because at some future date the BBC reports on it. Just something in me that rebels against (a) deciding an issue before it happens and (b) giving that much power to one news organization.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are safe with the BBC, from my experience they will never report it unless she gives interviews etc, they have never let me down yet. I understand and appreciate your comments though. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

j.j. abrams

there is information on here, that is wrong...or is an opinion in insulting this director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.239.170 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this, it's been reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Tower

The criticism section is strongly biased, and in need of substantial revision. The article cited is not, in fact, serious literary criticism. The article contains malicious ad hominem attacks against the author, and has not been subject to adequate fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolzgold (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the criticism from the article, although it appears that you have been edit-warring with another editor over its inclusion - not a good thing to do. First, I don't think one criticism of an author belongs in an article about the author unless you're going to do more in-depth review of the author's works, including good and bad reviews (there is an awards section but it doesn't get into details). Second, the quote is misleading. The critic did not directly say that Tower was such-and-such, he said that Tower is a wonderful magazine writer, and that magazine writers do such-and-such. Quite different. As worded, then, the article's assertion was wrong.

I've also removed the neutrality tag because I believe that was the only reason it was there. Another word of advice, though. A neutrality tag like the one you put in goes at the top of the article, not in the section. You need to modify the tag to have it apply to a single section. More important, you shouldn't add comments on the article page as if it's a Talk page. That's inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<merged content from new section - I didn't realize this had been brought up previously> There has been concern raised via OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2011061310014849) that the alleged criticism in the article is WP:UNDUE. My inclination is to agree as the individual giving the criticism is not necessarily know as an expert on the subject, and the criticism is sourced to the dissenter's own work. I suppose my question is, should a single individual's criticism be included in an article if it is not particularly relevant? If independent reliable sources also reported on the criticism it would be relevant, however as it stands it simply appears to one individual expressing their personal opinion and sourcing it, well, to their opinion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implication of newsy wrinkle conflated (in a libelous manner) in a scandal article

I have been warned, for the first time in 6 years at Wikipedia, of having made a third revert to an article, Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. I am reverting libelous material in adherence to WP:BLP and the editors in that section have reverted the same exact version into the article without any acknowledgement that what they are inserting makes it seem as if there has been no corroboration of the congressman's claim that Tweets exchanged with a 17-year-old constituent and political aspirant were not illicit material. As such, not only is any mention of this wrinkle in the day's news a violation of several policies from WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, but it is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:POV for two reasons. One, the mere mention in an article about a scandal conflates the unrelated exchange with the scandal and implies it is itself scandalous. "So when did you stop beating your wife." Two, the section merely presents the congressman's assertion that there was nothing untoward about the exchange, but omits the fact that the girl and her family confirm this, even though the source they are using they apparently haven't read or don't think is material to the issue, because it notes that fact. An article I read this morning gave a statement by the police confirming that this was the upshot of their interview with the family, but as the story has moved to calls for the congressman's resignation, when I go to my computer's history and see that title, I am piped to an update of the article that ignores the police statement in favor of the developments of the political posturing.

For the record, I am arguing against the whole article at an AfD, but have not made a single edit to the scandal article prior to this, with the view that the inflations and conflations made there out of the two or three bare bones of the actual scandal are all the more reason to delete. (I have edited the bio.) But I was stunned to find this wrinkle in the article to begin with, and then in such an obviously inflammatory way. Editors there feel no responsibility to respond to discussion, feel no responsibility to read their own cites, feel no responsibility to adhere to encyclopedic guidelines in a BLP, but are willing to warn someone who is doing something that is generally exempt from such a violation because I am myself trying to prevent a series of other violations. I hope an objective observer coming from the BLP angle will be helpful in this situation. Again, that they are reverting something that declares A denies impropriety without noting that B and C confirm that there was no impropriety is one issue, and the fact that even a "balanced" inclusion, with the confirmation by the girl, her family and the police of no impropriety, would not actually be a balanced and appropriate inclusion in that article anyway. Thank you, Abrazame (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this on the talk page and the AFD page. I'm now tracking 4 different locations for the exact same discussion. Fact of the matter is that you did, in fact, revert 3 times. That's all the message said. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong, you should stop reverting now and continue the discussion on the talk page. There is a lot of discussion there already. I am tracking this article closely. No one's going to hold a 3RR warning against you, if you slow down a little. But you do need to stop with the reverting. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to add unsourced stuff into a BLP, no matter whether its being discussed on the talk page, or in an AFD, if you can't sourced it, it goes until you can source it, then one can discuss its relevance or otherwise. I notice that someone else has stepped in to remove it. John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I...think you're confirming my point, but on the off chance that you're addressing that "You don't get..." to me, I wasn't the one adding the material, I was the one removing it and trying to get discussion going on the talk page to point out why. It's two other editors who were adding and readding. WP:3RR supports my assertion that I was not in danger of violating that rule, with the exemption: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." So that's what I did. Abrazame (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have real concerns about this article wrt WP:BLP for both Weiner and his online paramours. Please pay particular attention to the section titled Psychologists. The implication of this section is that Representative Weiner has personality disorder. How is this not potentially libelous? The article is linking to psychology professors discussing sex scandals in general terms using the Weiner scandal and others as examples. The psychologists interviewed are not making a clinical diagnosis of Weiner. The inclusion in the article under Reactions -> Psychologists very leading and conjectural. Furthermore, I have concerns about the privacy of people that received or exchanged pictures or text messages from the congressman. WP:BLPNAME says to apply caution when identifying people discussed primarily in terms of a single event, yet the "single mother from Texas" is still publicaly named. Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I would also like to add that the timeline and media reactions sections are a WP:COATRACK for posting links to news articles such that this encyclopedia entry becomes a personal attack. In the talk pages for this article, the argument is made that the media circus is itself newsworthy and this incident implications to the use of social media among politicians. In practice, however, the "media reactions" section has come to contain a list of stand-up jokes from talk-show hosts. I'd like some feedback from the BLP noticeboard regarding this section, also. Do not these jokes merely constitute WP:BLPGOSSIP? Thanks in advance, Liberal Classic (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Psychologists" section. The opinion stated, while cited, are of a general nature and there is no way to know if they actually apply. It is speculation of the worst sort for a BLP. Bielle (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle, I supported your removal of the Psychologists section on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Casey

A "letter to the editor" [22] is being used to support derogatory content. I removed it. Another editor restored it. Need another pair of eyes to check this out. Lionel (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like 'derogatory content' to me, though I can't access the Irish Times myself (it seems to be subscription-only). Are there other sources on this dispute? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have database access to the Irish Times. The first letter is Casey herself, referring to the Swedish study (cited to the claim that Casey refers to the Swedish study). It would be better to find an article or a paper of hers in which she cites the study, rather than a letter, but ultimately, she's a reliable source for her own opinions, so no problem there. The second source is an op-ed, so it isn't admissible in a BLP, but it's being cited only insofar as it reproduces RS quotes, which we can cite directly to the RS in question. Shall I replace the second source with the comments from Uppsala and UNICEF, cited to those entities? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, these claims are quite accusatory and weakly cited. "Casey has been faulted for repeatedly misrepresenting research data". - who says this? and where is it cited to? Can you please email me the contents of the letter or just the relevent part of it. Regarding - the comments from Uppsala and UNICEF, cited to those entities - can you please post those here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, that seems a sensible solution. If Casey is a reliable source for her own opinions, I'm sure Uppsala and UNICEF are for theirs. Still, as Rob says, it might be best to see what they all have to say first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll post excerpts to avoid the possibility of copyvio.

Casey: "...peer-reviewed studies which show that children, in general, do best when raised by their married biological parents...It must be borne in mind that Unicef, which accepts the veracity of these studies...cannot be accused of having a conservative bias. Nor can the University of Uppsala in Sweden which based its finding that fathers are very important for a child's development on 22,000 separate pieces of data." (She also refers to the Uppsala study and to Unicef in a separate letter, which is not currently cited.)
Anna Sarkadi, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Sweden: "It has come to our attention that Prof Patricia Casey has referred to our article in supporting her views on traditional marriage between biological parents being the best environment for a child to be raised in (March 5th). Prof Casey's conclusion that the article is one of the 'compelling reasons to continue giving marriage between a man and a woman the special support of the State' is not valid based on our findings...Please note that no comparisons were made with gay or lesbian family constellations in the studies included in the review. Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever in our review that would justify the conclusion that same-sex parents cannot raise healthy children who do well."
Melanie Verwoerd, Executive Director, Unicef Ireland: "Prof Patricia Casey refers to Unicef to support her view that 'children do best when raised by their biological mothers and fathers in a long-term relationship'. Unicef does not make any judgments on the well being of children growing up with same-sex parents...Prof Casey's reference to Unicef, with regard to the current debate on same-sex marriage and parenting, is incorrect and unacceptable."

Let me know if there is more I should post, or if you agree this is sufficient to replace the currently cited op-ed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

With reference to this discussion. Sorry for the delay in getting back. My explanations are as follows: 1. Yes it was me who inserted the claim "SP Balasubrahmanyam holds the guinness record for recording the most number of songs" I once reverted back and after User:Dougweller said not to insert it without verifying http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com as source I refrained from editing that page. 2) Also check these pages: Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle and Mohammed Rafi. Those articles too claim they held guinness records without citing "guinnessworldrecords.com". Did you check it? And I don't know about you people, in India Balasubrahmanyam is knwon for having sung the most number of songs. Numerous sources say that he has recorded the most no. of songs than anyone. But am not sure whether his name was there in the records or not. Also check Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, which claims four or five Guinness records without making a reference to "guinnessworldrecords.com". What are you gonna do? Of course, some of my edits would've been disuptive in the beginning, but I did not do it with any intention as I begin editing Wikipedia as a hobby. But now it has become a major interest for me. Regarding User:Salih's statements 1) The time when I tagged Mammooty's article, really there were some POV statements like "Star" "Biggest hits", etc., 2) Mohan Lal article had some major problems with the references. It said he was the "only actor in India to have ten Best actor nominations till date" but no sources were provided for that claim. Also "Business ventures" lacked lot of citations. I placed an inappropriate tag for that article for which I apologise. It's not only I who tagged K. J. Yesudas. As you can see the article it has some severe problems. Each section has lot of POV commentary. Isn't it? I never glorified people whom I like and never disgraced people whom I 'dont like. If 'thats your understanding of my behaviour, then it's not my problem. --Commander (Ping Back) 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abizaid, John

I am the wife of the subject of an article. Under his family history, I have repeatedly been reported as killed, dead or divorced. I have edited the article, but it is always changed back. We believe this has been done to bolster information used in an international dating site scam targeting women who are asked to send the scammers money. My husband's face and persona are being used in this scam, but apparently I have to be dead or divorced for it to work.

How can the biographical data be edited so that it cannot be changed by these people, or so that a source, such as a death notice, must be used? I would attribute it if possible, but have no recent citation proving I am alive.

I am sure Wikipedia wants accurate information on its biographies of living persons. Please tell me how to accomplish that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabiz (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor removed the unsourced information about you from the article. I'm sure that more than one editor will watch the article, for a while at least, to make sure that the information is properly sourced. Generally, anyone can edit information in a Wikipedia article. In other words, your wish to protect some information from being edited at all would be contrary to Wikipedia policy. However, for the most part, we catch problems like this one and remove the information. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. One more thing. Generally, you should not be editing your husband's article as you have a conflict of interest because of your relationship to him. See WP:COI. However, if you see something wrong, you can bring it to the attention of other editors on your husband's Talk page or here, as you did, or on some other appropriate forum on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely is there is any reliable source saying he is married, we should say that he is, and use that ref. Then the onus on those wanting to remove it is to produce a better reference proving their claim! Kabiz, when you say there's no recent citation, is there maybe something less recent? Because if so I think we should use that. Otherwise I worry we are just helping the scammers, and adopting too neutral a stance - if there's any citeable source at all, why can't it be in? Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I have just been bold and taken my own advice, using this as the source. It's from 2006 so, OK, not last week: but if it's no longer true it should be easy enough to replace the text and reference with more accurate ones, no? Hope this helps DBaK (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (addendum) by the way I think that Bbb23 is quite right, in that your merely having mentioned it here will almost certainly result in more editors keeping an eye on it. If it happens again and cited material is replaced with unsourced claims, you can always bring it back here if it's not being sorted out by other editors.[reply]

While what Bbb23 says is correct, obviously there is no conflict of interest if the woman edits out a section claiming her death. I'm sure she feels some twinge of responsibility to set the record straight regarding the scam she notes, for whomever might be taken in but for the ability to Google something that would contradict the details in the scam. She should not edit anything subjective, and indeed she has not. Again, while I understand Bbb23's reasoning in taking the preemptive precaution of noting this as an aside, I just wanted to be sure Mrs. Abizaid doesn't return here to feel slapped in the face for doing, in the interest of others she does not even know, something perfectly reasonable and responsible.

I have long thought that it should be possible to protect or semi-protect cited data in BLP infoboxes, as infoboxes are created to present incontrovertible, broad-strokes data points. I think it would be helpful to acknowledge that there are certain very limited fundamental facts that are not at all subjective. Most infobox material is simply single words or names or dates or titles, and there is no potential for improvement in phrasing or context. For example, if we have a reliable source for the fact that someone has a wife in the first place (I Googled a Life Magazine photo of Mrs. Abizaid pinning a medal on her husband or some such thing), we can cite that source and then nobody can edit that data point without an edit request on the talk page. In this manner, any proof for a fundamental change to a primary data point would be the result of discussion and the presentation of a reliable source, and then someone will come along and make the change. It will not prevent established editors from vandalism, but then established editors are generally the last people to do such a thing. And it will not prevent unestablished or anonymous editors from editing that data point in the text and having their edit remain there in those cases where they are the first responders to reliably sourced news about a real-life change such as a marriage/divorce/remarriage, birth or death of spouse/children/subject, promotion/demotion/change of career or political party, or what-have-you.

We could implement this in a way that such data points need to be confirmed by an administrator (I am not one, for the record). In this way, a higher threshold of certitude about the infobox material will be ensured, and we don't have the problem of irresponsible users protecting erroneous data to begin with.

I note that the most recent person to post this phony detail about Mrs. Abizaid was an IP user. My suggestion wouldn't change their ability to alter article text, which is where they did make their edit, but it would prevent them from altering a cited claim in the infobox were we to add and confirm one, and in addition to the obvious editorial responsibility of certifying infobox material in general, somebody arriving at the article to determine the veracity of such a scam could at least have the opportunity to note the contradiction between what is stated in the article body and what is stated in the box. Confirmations of data could appear with their edit history, which could further clarify a situation like this, as any post-2007 confirmation of the data point as might be able to be sourced would serve to refute the claim of the scammers. While the lack of any post-2007 reliable source appearance of Mrs. Abizaid prevents anyone from confirming she is alive and well, an administrator could be expected to make the editorial judgement that the death of a notable person's wife would have resulted in published obituaries, and the lack thereof would be confirmation that there is no reason to doubt that she is a living person.

From Farrah Fawcett to Betty White to Barack Obama and beyond, I have reverted erroneous infobox claims of death, usually from IPs or new accounts, countless times (as such vandalism is often part of a pattern and gets any registered user blocked after a few). (An odd twist on this is a sporadic pattern of declaring that Lucille Ball is still alive and well.) I would say that one of the most offensive and jarring types of vandalism is that regarding the death of someone in a BLP, and this would be a half-measure in preventing that.

I realize this is an imperfect solution, only a partial solution; I realize, too, that it would take a good bit of work both to pass such a policy and to implement it. But I think it would have a major effect on the reliability of Wikipedia as a source, and it would actually save a lot of time that is currently wasted reverting vandalism and rumors from that particular section. I wonder if anybody at this BLP page would think this is a good idea and help me figure how to present it. I reiterate, this would not affect controversial or subjective material. But it would prevent people from removing or replacing a few fundamental data points without establishing reliably sourced cause, such as name, birthdate, marital status, and the other biographical bulletpoints we present in an infobox. Abrazame (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Santorum_(neologism)

This article is an attack on a living person. Per the policy, I have gone in and blanked the article | here, left a note on the talk page explaining that I had done so and what my reasons were | here and nominated it for speedy deletion. The speeedy tags been removed, no problem with that, per policy it's okay to remove it, however, the page has become unblanked and protected by MSGJ against policy.

I'm requesting that policy be followed and that this page be deleted per the policy on attack pages | Shown here.

Yes, I realize it's not popular, nor is consensus in favor of it, but attack pages , just like NFCC images are not decided by consensus, but rather by policy. If an image is NFCC , it's removed even if consensus is they stay | for example.. the infamous gotse image debate. So, in short, I'm asking that this page be removed per the policy on Attack pages. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 20:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you should contact MSGJ, if you haven't already done so. If you're still unsatisfied, wouldn't WP:ANI be a more appropriate place to make your request than here? I have no comment on the merits of what you say - just discussing procedure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply quote one of our ArbCom members, replying to Kosh on the article's talk page in a discussion about his actions:

KoshVorlon, please stop making up non-existent policies and actually read the reams of discussion regarding this. This is currently one of the highest-profile pages on the project and has been discussed in every conceivable forum by a very broad cross-section of editors up to and including Jimmy Wales. If there were grounds for speedy deletion, someone would have noticed them by now. – iridescent 12:23 pm, 10 June 2011, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Given that, if Kosh wants to take it up through ANI and/or ArbCom, that's his call. I don't predict a warm reception. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can't simply say "policy". Opinions can differ on how policy should be applied, or whether a particular policy applies. Given that the page has been through 3 AfDs and numerous discussions where BLP issues have been raised, there is no mileage in the notion that the community finds it to be an attack page that must be blanked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacWhiz - the policy on attack pages was linked to. Start by reading it| right here. I said the same thing to Irridescent. Further, I've already contacted MSGJ and recieved no response.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon C. Cortines

This biography included libelous material which I removed. The biography is likely being edited in response to the Jamie Oliver Food Revolution TV show. I suggest that this page be locked, as it is very unlikely that real new material will become available for this person who probably does not even belong in wikipedia. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramon_C._Cortines&action=historysubmit&diff=433945690&oldid=433848563 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.167.15 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Mladić

Hi just checking my watchlist before popping off, can someone go check this out? Reactions by country with flags all over, er, I'm not sure if this suitable for this type of article? Had a quick look at FLAGBIO, but have been working on T.S.Eliot poem with daughter and brain frazzled. The editor in question seems to be adding a whole bunch more content (sourced) but not sure about neutrality either. Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme

If an article subject who goes by a changed name supposedly does not wish his birth name to be included in the article, are we bound to remove it even when it has been published in a good number of reliable sources? The (cited) birth name was removed by an editor who mentioned private correspondence from the subject and cited WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME, but I don't see that either of those policies apply here - BLPNAME because the person in question is the article subject, not (to use an example from another article) the victim of a recent high-coverage sex crime by the article subject, BLPPRIVACY because the policy does not suggest that names should be expunged and because the name has been published in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to err on the side of caution and not include the birth name. Basket of Puppies 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Segretti

The article on Donald Segretti states that he forged the so-called "Canuck Letter". I believe this to be incorrect and possibly libellous. I posted a query about it on the discussion page, but there hasn't been a lot of activity on that article for couple of years, so I thought maybe a post here would prompt a response.121.214.47.47 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to indicate that it was Ken Clawson, so I'll head over and remove that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The article has pretty much no references, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were other issues. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a source that mentions he was involved in its creation, though Clawson appears to have been the one actually to have written it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and the information. I've also thanked you on the article's discussion page. Great getting such a quick response. Cheers. 121.214.47.47 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Karayilan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Karay%C4%B1lan

A pro-Republic of Turkey "Activist Account" named "Randam" keeps trying to label the PKK rebel Murat Karayilan as a "narcotics trafficker". A longstanding accusation, (and probably true, the PKK definitely shakes down Kurdish drug dealers in Europe), but nevertheless a gross violation of WP:BLP. 69.167.171.39 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Solo

There is a very out of context quote in the "Post-2007 World Cup" section from Coach Greg Ryan that has been added after I have removed it multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.44.184 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Meyer

Someone keeps removing the information relating to the investigation into Lady Meyer's charity being investigated in relation to its finances. This information has been reported in the "Daily Telegraph" and "Independent on Sunday". It is public information and relevant to the pieces on Catherine Meyer (Lady Meyer) and her charity Parents & Abducted Children Together. Wikipedia should not be abused by Lady Meyer to publicize herself in only a positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rience Priebus

The discussion page for Rience Priebus reads like a blog with little factual information.

"Some Democrats have noted that, if you remove all the vowels, his name is "RNC PR BS". Thus, one theory is that his parents, foreseeing his election, selected those consonants and then just filled in vowels around them. In the unlikely event that we find a reliable source for this theory, we can add it. JamesMLane t c 15:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

His name is a homophone for Rinse Prepuce. It is clearly a description of him being a stinky dick and needing a good rinse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.47.85 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC"

It is offensive to someone who is trying to gather information on the man, and, it is certainly defamatory and an unwarranted and vulgar attack. The children are not playing nice in the sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.203.221 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion and commentary has already been deleted by User:OrangeMike wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reince_Priebus&diff=434123389&oldid=433241051. While some of the other comments are a bit borderline e.g. "I agree it seems like this guy did nothing and out of thin air was chosen to led the teabaggers" most of it appears to be attempts to find sources to flesh out the article (or at least moved in that direction if it wasn't the original reason for the discussion). Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

james suckling

Hi,

Under James Suckling's biography, there is the blatantly incorrect line that "In 1992 Suckling suggested to Wine Spectator publisher Marvin R. Shanken to create Cigar Aficionado,[3] a magazine dedicated to Cuban culture, specifically Cuban cigars." This statement is patently false. Mr. Suckling never suggested to Shanken that the latter create the magazine. Rather, Mr. Suckling himself has personally admitted that the idea of the magazine was entirely that of Mr. Shanken's.

During the past couple of months, I've routinely taken this passage down, but it is always continually reasserted. I've tried to find the original source material that is footnoted but it is nowhere to be found. Thus, I strongly request that the above deceptive lie be taken down to maintain the entire biography's credibility.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnagara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have searched too hard, in less than a minute of googling I found the full text online: Stappare Un’emozione (in Italian); the source is used appropriately (i.e. the information attributed to that source is indeed in it), so there's no reason to remove that sentence as unsourced. --Six words (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you can provide another reliable source that contradicts this source (like a magazine quoting James Suckling as saying the idea wasn't his) then that can be included as well. If you can't find a quote in a reliable source that says that the idea wasn't Suckling, than the info should stay in the article - even if you believe it's wrong. Ultimately, our articles can only be as accurate as the reliable sources they are based off of. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Kevin (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Smedley

Could someone please check this article.

A person called Peter Smedley died, via "assisted suicide", at Dignitas (euthanasia group).[23]

His story has been recently covered on BBC television in a documentary entitled Choosing to Die, featuring Terry Pratchett.[24] -Thus a great many people are likely to look at the article for background. (The documentary is being broadcast now, as I type this message).

The only indication he has died, in the article mentioned above, is this edit. But is the article even about the same individual?

I'm sorry I am unable to fix this issue myself at this time, and so post here in the hope others will sort it out. Chzz ► 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me these are two different people. --KFP (contact | edits) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mann (Guitarist) Discography

(just an addition needed)

The Discography of Steve Mann CDs reissued in the early 21st century by Bella Roma Music should read as follows, (in order of reissue:)

BRM-110 Steve Mann;Alive and Pickin'

BRM-111 Steve Mann Live at the Ash Grove

BRM-112 Steve Mann Straight Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.5.46 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Olsen (runner)

NEUTRAILITY ISSUE

(as posted on Moonriddengirl's page)

Each time I address the neutrality of this article, it gets deleted by the person controlling that page... and I mean controlling and that person is CanadianLinuxUser.

The article on "Jesper Olsen (runner)" is bias and the person who edits this article the most (and aggressively monitors it) appears to control it, believe they own it and clearly has a vested interest in promoting it.

Wikipedia is not about owning a page and promoting your friends or creating a page about unknowns like Jesper Olsen, who has not achieved anything. (No world records ratified and using only his own web site or friend's blogs as references).

This article is far too promotional and needs *complete neutrality*, something it sorely lacks. (someone other than CanadianLinuxUser).

I believe it should get deleted, but at present its promo fluff. At very best it needs a thorough "cleanup" as well as "npov"

Many thanks.

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