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)

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.

Aelita Andre

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email sales@agora-gallery.com for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Clifford Vaughs

Clifford Vaughs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

J. Patrick Capps

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a wikipedia page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Oleg Seriy

Amazon source added http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Oleg%20Seriy

Hope it would be enough --Natuzzi mandus (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few ref tags - needs some kind of editing, content supported by Russian wikipedia external links - in Russian! - might need proding or AFD or improving if anyone is Russian and thinks there is enough WP:RS coverage ... Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just found as as someone is adding this guy to various fringe articles. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Seriy - self-published book, sources another Wikipedia and random google searches, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto J. Cordero

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos. ^[1]

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8. ^[2]

Steven Rattner

It appears that the edits of Alexfro are intended to remove references to the Attorney General investigation of Steven Rattner. The neutrality of Alexfro is in question due to the use of phrases from http://stevenrattner.com/bio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.18.45 (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have your tried talking to the user on the article talkpage or his userpage and asking him why they are making the edits and explaining why you object to them instead of reverting and reporting. As a side note it seems some of this disputed content was added by User:Freakshownerd in Nov last year. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent some messages, and will await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.18.45 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage campaign against Rick Santorum

(move from BLPN talk) --JN466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking consensus here as to whether we should be linking to the personal website Dan Savage set up about Rick Santorum, the former senator for Pennsylvania. For those of you not familiar with the background, Savage is an American freelance columnist who set up a website intended to spread a vulgar definition of Santorum's surname. He did this in response to comments Santorum made about homosexuality that the gay community and others found offensive.

We have several articles that refer to the controversy, including Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The question is whether we should be linking to Savage's website directly, or whether we should only cite secondary sources that refer to it. WP:BLPSPS is clear on this point, namely that self-published sources must not be cited for material about living persons. But when I remove the site, I'm being reverted, [1] [2] so fresh input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another process fork? Can we please direct conversation to that page so it does not spin out again across the encyclopedia? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ wikidemon. Assuming that we are forced to continue discussion here, I'll repeat what Is aid in the other venue: the above is a strained reading of policy which as written applies to articles about persons. Obviously BLP applies (potentially) to any page on wikipedia but broadening that application requires that we interpret the policy accordingly. The subject of the above article (Campaign for "santorum" neologism) includes the website in question and it is perfectly reasonable to link to it in the course of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is a noticeboard for highlighting violations of the BLP policy, and we have one on that article that has been restored twice by an admin. Input from editors used to interpreting the policy would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps at some point you will choose to reveal this rogue admin and let us all know what their sysop status has to do with the discussion at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop status is relevant, because admins are meant to uphold the BLP policy, not revert someone who is trying to do that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine opinion, and probably relevant were someone using the tools rather than simply editing normally. We still haven't revealed the identity of this mystery sysop. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the article talk page discussions. Linking to the site is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of WP:BLPSPS –

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). ... External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

as well as the letter and spirit of WP:ELBLP –

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP."

We are talking about a self-published website that equates a living person's name with the mixture of shit and lubricant produced in anal sex. I am having trouble seeing how anyone can argue in good faith that linking to it should be in line with the policy and guideline wording above, regarding self-published derogatory sources. --JN466 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't load the other page at the moment, so posting here: I strongly feel that the site should be included and that to not include it amounts to censorship, but can't see how policy allows it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning it is one thing; linking to it is another. --JN466 16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS. So it is ok to say spreadingsantorum.com but not link to it in the article? Protonk (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What is the problem with that? If secondary sources mention the name, so can we. What's so important about having a clickable link to it? --JN466 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important because the campaign is the subject of the article. Refusing to link to the campaign is, frankly, a method of asserting an opinion about it. Second, it is frakking absurd that spreadingsantorum.com is ok but add a few square brackets and it is a completely forbidden string of text under any and all circumstances. How can you not see this? Protonk (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the policy, take it to the policy talk page—but don't break policy just because you would like to. --JN466 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but we can ignore stupid rules. Furthermore, the decision to strip the link is based on an interpretation of policy, so discussing it here is perfectly reasonable. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the policy doesn't stand in for argumentation. The BLP policy was written primarily for articles about living persons. It has been adapted to articles which deal in some respect to a living person (that is to say, nearly every page on the wiki) but such an adaptation demands that we also think about the text of the policy before applying it. Specifically "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" is nonsensical where an article like Campaign for Santorum is concerned. If the article is a BLP, who is the subject? Savage? Santorum? Neither? How do we strictly and unambiguously apply policy in this case? We can't. What we need to do is utilize that space between our ears and come to a solution. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP!!!" bit is getting to be a pretty weak hand. Don't you have another card up your sleeve by now? 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not using information from that self-published source, we're linking to it as the primary vector for the attack which the RFC determined the article was about. It's not a random attack page, it's a primary subject of the article. BLPSPS does not apply in this case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a flawed reading of BLP. The section quoted above does not require blanket removal of links to external websites that are the subject of an article, if they are an unreliable source and contain derogatory information about people. If that were the case we would have to blacklist WorldNetDaily, Mother Jones, The Washington Times, TMZ.com, and the Roger & Me website, not to mention the Wall Street Journal editorial page. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest this discussion be moved to the actual noticeboard, instead of the talkpage? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --JN466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about Savage's campaign, it makes sense to provide an external link to the campaign, as we do with other articles. I would not however recommend providing an EL to this site on Santorum's BLP article. TFD (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, it doesn't belong on the Santorum article at all. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

I have been slightly involved in discussion, but withdrew for the most part because of the convoluted contentious nature of what should have been a pretty simple situation:

BLP includes living persons referenced on Wikipedia in anyway. We split hairs if we suggest an article whose title says something else, but includes text on a living person does not fall under BLP and BLPSPS. Further the site is not obscure, and can be mentioned in secondary sources, so those wanting to look at the site won't have difficulty at all in finding it with out Wikipedia compromising its own standards. Once again this is simple. The policy tells us what to do so that we do not do unnecessary harm to living persons. Linking to a personal site perpetrates harm. Citing secondary sources means the source may have already created the harm, and we are merely as editors reporting what has already been written.(olive (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The policy is clear on this point: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..." See WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dan Savage has a link to his website, which includes the santorum campaign. How is this any different? We also provide links to all kinds of websites for articles about subjects, such as the American Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who is the subject of Campaign for "santorum" neologism? Protonk (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago the article was called "Santorum Google problem", which was a valid title describing its content, and discussions about the title are still ongoing. It's not comparable to an article like Stormfront_(website), which is specifically about that website, and could not be called anything else. --JN466 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is a semantic mapping for the article and isn't determinative of the subject or nature. I would also submit that the space for discussion about the subject of the article should hint at the limitations in strictly applying BLPSPS. If we have to jump through hoops in order to justify a claim to policy then that claim is itself diluted. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the campaign is Rick Santorum, but the subject of the article is the campaign itself. (Note two different meanings of the term subject.) TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep the link to the primary page of the campaign off-wiki is absurd. It violates the basic idea of the WWW. From a BLP point of view, it most likely also is counterproductive - see Streisand effect. Finally, Santorum is not some innocent private guy - he is a public figure - indeed, he is running for President. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website is an attack site about one person, Rick Santorum, and the creator acknowledged he was setting it up for that purpose. Linking to it clearly violates the BLP policy. The name of the articles that house the link is irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So under what circumstances would we be allowed to link to spreadingsantorum.com? Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our role is not to defend people from cold hard facts of what is out in the real world. Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the name of the article, it's the contents of the article. The RFC determined that the article was about the campaign/googlebomb/whatever. SpreadingSantorum.com was the focus/method/whatever of the campaign. Therefore, it is encyclopedic that we link to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

It doesn't matter what the name or subject of the article is. Citing a self-published website that attacks a living person—anywhere on Wikipedia—is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A, that's not what it says, and B, this isn't citing it. The exact wording of WP:BLPSPS is: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." The only material which we could source from this site is sourced from reliable third-party sources instead. Therefore, there is not a violation of that policy here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(observation) Just name the site. Anyone that wants to can simply c&p it into a web browser search engine, and the textual name won't affect that google ranking. John lilburne (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely not our job to fix or unfix Google. And how do you know a textual link does not affect Google ratings?

I fail to understand why that isn't good enough. What is the dire need to link in the first place? We appear to have a very plausible reading of our BLP policies that seems to forbid the linking. Isn't the convention to err on the side of caution here? What is lost by not providing a direct link as opposed to the requisite information in text?Griswaldo (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is lost is the principle of hypertext, the very basis of the World-Wide Web. It's also hypocritical beyond belief.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what is hypocritical about it. Can you please explain that? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out above, mentioning the URL provides the same level (if not the same convenience) of access as providing the link. So you seem to advocate different treatment for two actions that are, in substance, equivalent. That's hypocritical. It also inconveniences our readers for no real benefit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the narrow issue of text vs. URL there is an inherent disingenuousness in claiming to have an article so neutral that we will decide on behalf of the reader that they don't need to navigate to a specific website associated with the subject. Including or removing the URL is an editorial decision and we can't avoid responsibility for that decision by pointing to BLP. BLP should be weighed against the needs of the article and the contour of the subject. Treating BLP as a reason to remove links like this without the potential for wiggle room is an abdication of our responsibility as editors. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that Wikipedia's MO is to severely limit the amount of external hypertext linking that is allowed. See WP:EL. It does not follow that we try to abide by "the principle of hypertext" in some way that says, always link to external sites when possible. Quite the opposite. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is the point of not including the link if we're including the URL? Is it to make it purposefully inconvenient for our readers, who will wonder why we can't master the idea of hyperlinks? That seems to me to be the AGF explanation, and the other ones I can think of would probably get me sanctioned if I posted them. The idea that we can mention the name of the site, mention its URL, but can't link it because OMG it might violate BLP then is wikilawyering at its most despicable, and contains not one shred of common sense. This seems like a clear place where a combination of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR need to apply. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our business is to abide by the guides we have as a community written to provide the clear, cold-cut anchors that in heated, contentious situations like we have now, will override emotion, and my opinion, your opinion, opinions, in favour of citing what has already been written by sources with oversight, that is by 'professionals'. We're not researchers writing papers on censorship, the effects of the internet on reputation, we're not trying to protect Santorum, or gay rights, or whatever other ideals, opinions, sensibilities we hold. We are editors more simply citing what is in the reliable sources, that is, those with oversight. When the oversight isn't present we don't link to the source unless the source is writing about itself/himself/herself.(olive (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Chiming in: Having an article that is largely about a website while not linking to that website (but including the name) is just foolishness. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the the article is about a website we should call it Spreading Santorum website. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a campaign to get that website to the top of a Google search for a specific word. I'd say the site is central to the proceedings. But even if the article were named as you suggest, it appears folks would be using the same arguments to keep the link off. They seem to apply either way yes? Hobit (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The website is the subject of significant sourced commentary relevant to the article's topic. You probably could not completely understand the topic without seeing the website. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and there is a rather rude picture there. However, the significance of the site to the topic - just how relevant and noteworthy it is - is something best left to the article talk page. You could make the case that it's a fairly minor part of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*ROTFL!!! "You probably could not completely understand the topic without seeing the website." BWAHAAHAHAHAHAH! That's the funniest thing I've read in ages! ROTFL! Oh, man, would you mind coming over to help fight the NFCC Wars?. Your input is just priceless! lol! Dreadstar ☥ 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the fact that the website link leads to a brown, gooey splat of what apprently is the visual representation of this article's description of 'santorum' is just hilarous. I'd love to apply that to NFCC. Again. Sorry. Heh..'splat', photo, ...yeah... Dreadstar ☥ 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay or should we summon a medic? Yes, WP:NFC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. By observation, that gooey splat does inform my understanding of Savage's maturity level or lack thereof, the question is whether that's "significant" or whether what one gets from seeing that qualifies as "understanding" or something else. Anyway, NFCC nods to the contours of U.S. copyright law and is a can of worms. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I could use a good medic! After clicking on that site, I may never be able to eat a brownie or drink a chocolate shake again..! Seriously, tho, sorry about that, it was another poor attempt at humor on my part and yet another total, abject failure...I'll stop trying, thanks for your continued tolerance. Dreadstar ☥ 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses, I've been gone: BLP applies here to statements about Santorum or Savage... but not to discussion of the campaign itself. We aren't writing a BLP, and BLP applies only peripherally. The policy "when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy" is very clear. So maybe we should not link directly. However, the spirit of that policy is that we should not write "spreadingsantorum.com" either. But that is nonsensical in this case, so we should ignore it, perhaps to the extent of direct linking, though that's not strictly necessary in order to write a proper article. (A direct link to the site will not effect Google because of the nofollow property.)

"And who is the subject of Campaign for "santorum" neologism? --Protonk" Why, no one: we're talking about a campaign. If not, then there is a major problem here, and I'll immediately delete 95% of this article.

"When the oversight isn't present we don't link to the source unless the source is writing about itself/himself/herself. --olive" I think we can safely say that in an article about the campaign, spreadingsantorum.com is writing about the campaign, and as part of the campaign is writing about itself. But this is confusing an article about the campaign with an article on Santorum. If we're writing an article on Santorum, then the site is not something we use. If we're writing about the campaign, then BLP is peripheral and anyway, the site is "about itself."

Anyway, what we have here is strained arguments about how we should not link to a site which is central to the subject of the article- the campaign. I believe we at least need to have the site mentioned in plain text, and that it is acceptable to have it as a link; and that there is no real difference between the two except convenience to the reader. Perhaps also, Wikipedia's reputation as a source which does not flinch for no reason from covering any subject impartially. Maybe we should not have this article, but those who feel this way (I will say it again) need to formulate their ideas as policy, or else appeals to inapplicable policy or emotion are not going to fly. I would definitely support such an attempt because even if it failed we would learn a great deal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that the policy, literally applied, prohibits linking to the site. I think it's also clear that the policy is not meant to be for that sort of case and should not be interpreted literally. The ban on linking to self-published derogatory material is meant to apply when the link is used as a substitute for including the derogatory material in the article. If the article is about the existence of derogatory material, then this becomes a non-concern; the derogatory material is in the article anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved commentary

It would be nice to get some uninvovled commentary on this. I realize half the Wiki has chimed in at some point or another, but I'm sure there are people who haven't who regularly work in BLP areas who might have something to say. Some fresh voices might be helpful here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wholly naive to the issue. It was on ANI while I was following something else. I looked things over cursorily, but have not been following the article. A strict interpretation of third-party sourcing is in order; opinion pieces by the principals, even if published in the New York Times, should not be used if they are not discussed by a third-party source. There is adequate material for an article, but sourcing should be held to an unimpeachable standard: anything that cannot be traced to a third-party reliable source should be purged. There is no problem in linking to relevant primary sources, as references or external links, once their notability to the subject has been established as sufficiently central to the matter. In this case, WP:CIRCULAR frames an important issue. If Wikipedia has been a part of the battleground, and I suspect it qualifies, then it becomes necessary to enforce the highest measures of objectivity possible. Everything must be sourced by a third-party source, and if there is any doubt if it is a reliable source, it is excluded until the matter is resolved ({{citation needed}} should be a no-no). Every editor should be treated as having a conflict of interest; it does not preclude editing, but it raises the bar on what is acceptable.Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Having reviewed the sources, I find that there are several that make for unimpeachable sources that mention the website, if not by name. Since, among others, New York Magazine chose to link to the site, I would suggest that there is adequate basis for the link as informative. In general, Wikipedia is not intended to be prudish, but should have appropriate boundaries. The page has a lot of issues with the use of primary sources without reliable secondary sources, but on this issue, the external link, there is sufficient support from secondary sources to establish that it is central to the issue the article discusses, thus a valid (the word appropriate seems out of place) external link.Novangelis (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Review article links to the WR website. The Encyclopedia Dramatica article links to mirrors of that semi-defunct website. Those websites also engage in crude or scatological attacks on living people. I don't see the difference. I've previously said that we shouldn't link to such sites, but if they're allowed then we should be consistent. Will Beback talk 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We asked Dennis King to stop linking to his site in LaRouche articles for the same reason, so that principle has to apply here too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more accurately, the same principle is applied to all articles and interpreted as appropriate. We do not (and cannot) apply the policy mindlessly or uniformly. We link to WR or ED or the DeCSS code because it is appropriate to do so in those articles apart from the the letter of ELNEVER or BLPSPS--both of which would preclude linking WR or ED and the former which would preclude linking to DeCSS. Sound arguments have been raised here and on the talk page in support of linking to the site and they have been met with repeated links to the same policy. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise DeCSS, which is less BLP and more ELNEVER, yet we link to it because the article would suffer without it. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACKSITES is still a failed proposal

Is this an attempt to resurrect a dead proposal by creeping it up in a few cases (like santorum (neologism)) and then applying it to more general cases later? Sure feels like it. Once we disregard our dislike of Dan Savage's web site it becomes a simple matter of editorial decision making whether we should link to it, and there is no other reason not to. This is the primary website about the primary topic of the article. No brainer, link it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm okay with an editorial decision not to link to the site. It's one of those "can I please have the last fifteen seconds of my life back" kind of things, I don't see a whole lot of explanatory encyclopedic edification value to the reader of looking at that. Your mileage may vary so I would respect consensus either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daisaku Ikeda

Ikeda heads Sōka Gakkai, a Buddhist sect. He is a man of many and remarkable accomplishments, or anyway he is according to sources close to Ikeda, Sōka Gakkai, and its organization SGI. Many of the claims for these accomplishments have had "citation needed" for some time, until they very recently got citations aplenty -- citations to Ikeda's own website or to this or that website of SGI. Please see the article's recent history, and this thread at the foot of the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of promo self published. It is a difficult thing to rework such a promotional article that is watched by supporters of the person/organization adding self published content, the more they add the more difficult it seems to be to remove. IMO it needs someone that is interested enough in the person to completely rewrite it and then it would need indefinite semi protection to stop the IP addresses from simply re-placing the promotion/devotional additions. imo the existence of such articles make a mockery of our policy and guidelines. I removed a large mostly uncited list of his claimed honorary doctorates - there is a link to his org website where the list is visible for anyone to view if they click on the external. I trimmed a bit of the wood, a good job to see what is actually going on would be to go through all the references and format them to expose them so it is easily seen which of them are primary/self published. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or better, just pull out any note that "sources" an accomplishment via a page in the website of this man, his religious organization, or any of the numerous ancillary organizations under its control. Or anyway this is my interpretation of WP:V. As for pulling out the table of his honorary degrees, I certainly appreciate your reasoning, but I nevertheless disagree; please see this thread in the talk page. And as for the fervor for the subject of the article, yes, see for example the reader comments here: admiration! love!! exclamation points!!! -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comment on the talkpage. I put it all back for you, good luck with your efforts to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My edits are only intermittent, as I'm not even Buddhist, let alone worked up either way about this variety of the religion. Meanwhile, your comments and others' comments would be welcome on the talk page, in order to help set straight what is desirable and what is permissible. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The IP has just reintroduced all this sourcing of Ikeda's accomplishments to Ikeda's own site and (to a lesser extent) the sites of organizations he heads. I thereupon removed it (and more). Oops -- perhaps this makes me an edit warrior and I should have waited for somebody else to remove it. However, I did explain (citing explicit Wikipedia policy) here on its talk page. I'd be grateful if some level-headed people reading this would go there and comment on it, whether (A) to say I'm right or (B) to say that no, I'm wrong, Wikipedia can indeed source great claims to the websites of those living people about whom the claims are made. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Antonio Vargas

Article subject revealed in an article that he was an "undocumented immigrant", his phrasing. An IP editor has repeatedly tried to recast this term, and have included BLP violations in edit summaries. Subject has not been charged with a crime in this regard, much less convicted. Another editor added a category that is similarly problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a difference in the USA but it seems a bit of a fine point, perhaps unworthy of dispute over. Some papers are simply reporting illegal immigrant - MSBN for example - Pulitzer-winning journalist admits he's illegal immigrant - and civilliberty.com prefer Undocumented - Illegal Immigrants or Undocumented Immigrants? - I myself would suggest that as BLP requests us to write conservatively in regard to living people I would lean towards the less attacking terminology but its an emotive issue as you can see from the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a LGBT category since the subject's sexual orientation isn't coverd in the current version. (That went over like a lead balloon) Maybe add it going forward if that is worked into the article in an approriate way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT id has been taken care of by adding text and reinstating cats - thanks for bringing it to our attention. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← I agree with Rob here - BLP policy does indeed favor using less attacking, NPOV terminology, and "undocumented" is clearly less POV than "illegal". There are 2 IPs who seem to be single-purpose accounts editing with an agenda - see the edit summaries for these edits: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Undocumented immigrant" is a legal state that doesn't exits in the United States, only in completely open immigration/no extradition countries such as Argentina. The term in the US is "illegal immigrant"...this is used by the US government and it's legal system. As for edit warring, I suggest that you don't start a call for an end to edits after reverting the article to your POV. That's an action in bad faith on Wikipedia. 173.15.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the presented externals above there clearly is an option for both expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with the term "undocumented immigrant". It's often used in legal decisions as a descriptor. In any event, what requires that it be a correct legal term (or, as you put it, "legal state")? The term is used because it is supported by the source. Your belief that "illegal immigrant" is less POV is simply your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he is charged and convicted with something illegal then we can go with the illegal phraseology, until then the cited and less attacking expression seems to sit better within WP:BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Wikipedias place to redefine terms (now an illegal immigrant is only someone who is "charged and convicted..."?) or to create/support new euphemisms. It smacks of original research. As for the statement that the article supports the use of the term...the article you are using to support that was written by the subject. Slight conflict of interest. The numerous other articles on the subject by independent journalists who refer to him as an "illegal immigrant" were removed as sources from the article during editing because they didn't support "undocumented immigrant". If I opened someone's head with a drill saw and then wrote an article about it describing myself as an "undocumented brain surgeon", would you go with that as the descriptor?173.15.206.101 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an RfC at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bbb23, I see you removed nationality and ethnicity from his info box? This stuff is pretty standard fare. Could that be added back maybe after all the other "issues" settle down. I didn't want to revert you since its not a big deal. Anyways, cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something. In Vargas's case, the infobox says he was born in the Philippines, so there's no need to say he's Filipino, either by nationality or by ethnicity.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something is that from a MOS or guideline? It seems that those are included on alot of BLPs, not saying its right or wrong, just noting. They do seem to be relevant but maybe what do others think? Anyways, thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a guideline out there on this issue I haven't seen (there are so many :-) ). But as far as I'm concerned, it's just editorial judgment and common sense. It would be like saying in the body of the article, "Vargas was born in the Phillipines and is Filipino. He's also ethnically Filipino." As for the everyone-else-does-it argument, I never find that compelling - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sherwood

We received an OTRS ticket in relation to BLP issues on Ben Sherwood. The article has been plagued by edit warring by SPAs and sockpuppets. I semi'd the article and blocked the recent set of sockpuppets. Could somebody have a look though the article and clean up any BLP issues? Brandon (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of copy editing of the article. I added a cite for his appointment as president of ABC News. Unfortunately, in so doing, I realized that a lot of the material in the WP article was copied from the ABC News release. I haven't fixed that yet. It'll take a little more time to eliminate the possible copyright issues. There don't seem to be any BLP violations, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Billy Bob Thornton Perspectives welcome

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kerr and Robin Jackson

Under what circumstances can we strongly implicate someone as guilty of a murder when they were were never questioned, arrested, charged, or convicted?

This concerns accusations made in articles about the two recently deceased ( 1997 and 1998 ) men named in this currently-proposed DYK hook:

Did you know that Northern Irish loyalists Robert John Kerr and Robin Jackson went on to deliver a load of chickens after allegedly shooting a Catholic chemist?" ( livelink/snapshot )

I'm not familiar with this topic area, but editor Jeanne Boleyn who wrote the two biographical articles about Kerr and Jackson that are wikilinked from the hook appears to be. The two articles seem well written overall; these two men do appear therein as pretty awful human beings.

But unless I missed something, the murder accusation is based only on an affidavit ( not even court testimony, note ) by one of the two other men who were actually convicted of the murder, viz. police officer John Weir. Jeanne points out that his affidavit was apparently viewed as credible by one prosecutor and one (or perhaps two) very prominent Irish judicial authorities, however.

Still, Kerr and Jackson were never questioned, arrested, charged, or convicted; two other men were in fact convicted of the crime. Jeanne's articles about Kerr and Jackson present the police and the British security forces of the time as having protected them from any official action. That may very well have been why no action was taken against them; I haven't been able to come to a conclusion about that myself. I notice, though, that at least one possible contrary opinion is included in The Barron Report, on pages 257 and 258:

Particular attention has been given to the fact that an RUC [i.e. Northern Ireland police] detective was said to have told the court that this [lack of action against Kerr and Jackson] was for "reasons of operational strategy." In the absence of further explanation, it is hardly surprising that this oblique phrase has been taken by some to indicate that Jackson and Kerr were working for or with the RUC Special Branch [of the police]. But it may have meant no more than that the police had no evidence on which to prosecute them, but did not wish to admit this in public. ( emphasis added )

This issue may be a bit difficult to review for editors who, like myself, are not already very familiar with the multiplicity of groups that were involved in The Troubles. But because I think opinions from people who don't contribute to a controversial topic area can be especially valuable, I'm working on a concise summary as I learn more about this myself. If I end up feeling satisfied with what I'm able to put together that way I'll post that here subsequently. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be putting anyone allegedly did anything on our front page. I strongly oppose this DYK. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 1 for Kerr states unequivocally :Credible but hearsay testimony by former RUC officer John Weir alleges that the murder was committed by alleged RUC Special Branch agent Robin Jackson, RUC officer William McCaughey, and R.J. Kerr and also Weir also recounts how he, together with McConnell, Jackson, RUC officer William McCaughey and Loyalist paramilitary R.J. Kerr, participated in the operation to murder Catholic shopkeeper William Strathearn (murdered April 19, 1977).165

The charge is found in a reliable source (Notre Dame Law School). And properly identified as to source and person making the claim, can be used in a BLP, although exceedingly carefully. Collect (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced every allegation I have made in the articles, and not once have I stated that these two persons were guilty of murder. I have used the word alleged throughout as these are allegations. I should point out that both the Notre Dame Law School and Mr. Justice Barron in his report stated that John Weir's evidence was "overall credible". The Irish police force also found him to have been credible. Another thing both Jackson and Kerr are dead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both dead? In that case include all the allegations and accusations and DYK hooks about them killing people and delivering chickens and whathaveyou, excellent work, another feather in the projects cap</sarcasim>....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threeafterthree, I must say your erudite and profoundly witty comments have added much pith to the debate at hand. It is you who should be receiving my congratulations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

erudite? I was scolded on my talk page, so I apologize for my sarcasm. Being a minimalist/deletionist, I am not a fan of any material about allegations and accusations and heresay/rumors/urbanlegend unless it rises to a super huge, really bid deal, we have to include it all costs type deals, and even then I am not a fan :). Anyways, cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Article has a section on him "possibly" being a secret Roman Catholic. Per prior discussions on this and related pages, I enquire as to whether such speculation on religion is proper in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about possibly being a secret, or closet, Roman Catholic cites the Washington Post and an article that implies these things - see HERE. The presence of a reliable published source makes it look OK to me, although the Washington Post doesn't appear to use the words "secret" or "closet". Dolphin (t) 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that recent BLP discussions have invariably found that claiming a person "might" be something is not done on Wikiopedia any more. Thus we no longer assert that a person is "Jewish" just because some source makes the claim - we rely on what the person says he or she is. In the case at heand, no solid basis for making the claim (other than a meeting with the Pope) is given as a basis for the claim that Bush is a Roman Catholic, and there is plenty of evidence, including his own church membership and overt attendence, which belies the claim. Thus the section is, at best, rank speculation. Collect (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The source cited doesn't say that GWB is a Catholic, secret or otherwise. It describes him as a "Protestant President". It has one named source (Paul Weyrich - hardly a neutral reliable source?) saying that he thinks Dubya "is a secret believer". Otherwise, it is nothing more than a commentary on the closeness of some of GWB's politics to that of the Catholic right wing, and on the fact (truly astonishing? I think not) that there were Catholics holding positions within the Bush government. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, the statements made in the section in the WP article go beyond what the source reasonably supports as fact. And thus is a tad misused in the BLP. Cheers and thanks. Collect (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ← outdenting ) I agree that we have no basis at all to assert that George W. Bush might be a crypto-Catholic or that he intends to follow his brother Jeb's precedent and convert to Catholicism. The sources cited in the disputed section do appear to support an assertion that Bush was very favorable to Roman Catholic values and objectives, for whatever that's worth, and that he formed a closer relationship with the Pope than any preceding President had done:

Mary Ann Glendon, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, said that Bush regards the Pope as the greatest spiritual leader in the world; she also stated "There is no doubt that these two men have formed a deep personal friendship." ( Catholic News Service )

Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate said of Bush, "I don't think there's any question about it, he's certainly much more Catholic than Kennedy." (Daily Telegraph)

"Catholics - and thus Catholic social teaching - have for the past eight years been shaping Bush's speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history." (Washington Post)

Former Bush speech writer William McGurn said, "I used to say that there are more Catholics on President Bush's speechwriting team than on any Notre Dame starting lineup in the past half-century". (Washington Post)

Former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson said that the key to understanding Bush's domestic policy is to view it through the lens of Rome. (Washington Post)

Bush prayed with Pope Benedict in the Oval Office and developed an unusually close personal relationship with him. (Washington Post)

Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority said he thought Bush was a "secret believer" in Catholicism. (Washington Post)

The Catholic News Agency thought the story in The Telegraph credible enough to generate its own follow-on story about it. ( not present in disputed WP article section )

John DiIulio, the first Bush appointee on Faith-Based initiatives did actually call Bush a "closet Catholic", as The Telegraph reports. But the Telegraph's statement appears to be based on page 117 of DiIulio's book Godly Republic, and it's obvious from the context there that DiIulio didn't intend the description to mean that Bush was literally a Roman Catholic.

None of this comes close to meriting its own section in the main George W. Bush article, but a couple of sentences wouldn't be out of place in some Bush-related article or article-section about (e.g.) his personal and political relationship to Christianity, if we have one. A quick search leads me to believe that we probably don't have any such appropriate home for this content, however. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense has been removed (diff), but in case there is any doubt, no article should record such speculation with such weak sources and nonexistent attempt to suggest the material is of any significance other than fun gossip. It was ok for the media to report the speculation at the time, but it is not suitable for a bio unless there is some serious suggestion of the material's veracity (and in that sense, the sources are pathetic). Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott

article is poorly sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.179.144 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes when I look, the article looks adequately sourced for beginners, however it will need more sources should it be expanded in the future. I would not consider this article an issue at the moment. JoeGazz ▲ 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Freeman

The biography of Ron Freeman, Olympic athlete, incorrectly confuses him with an individual of the same name who was a teacher at Monte Vista High School and died in 2011. Ron Freeman, the athlete, is still alive, and this erroneous report of his death is causing great concern among his friends and classmates from Elizabeth, NJ. An error as severe as this cannot wait for the vetting cycle to allow me to be able to edit the page myself.

This is the current entry: Ronald ("Ron") J. Freeman II (born June 12, 1947) is a former American athlete, winner of gold medal in 4x400 m relay at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

Born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Ron Freeman was third in 400 m and ran the second leg in the American 4x400 m relay team, which won the gold medal with a new world record of 2.56.11.

Following his Olympic career, Freeman taught Physical Education and World History at Monta Vista High School. He died of a heart attack in 2011.

The following is from MercuryNews.com:

Ron "Screamin" Freeman

Resident of Los Altos

Passed away suddenly on Jan. 21. He was 52. Ron was a cornerstone in the South Bay water polo community. He spent the last 30 years teaching and coaching at Monta Vista High School in Cupertino. He was instrumental in the USA Water Polo Olympic Development Program, De Anza Water Polo Club, and the De Anza-Cupertino Aquatics program. He was also involved with the Junior Olympics, serving as team lead on the 1997 U.S. World Champion Team.

For more about Ron go to the Face Book page "Ron Freeman was my water polo coach and History teacher".

Ron is survived by his mother and stepfather Miriam and Ken Clark, his brothers Richard, Dean, John, and Wayne Freeman, and his sister Cathleen Bridenstein.

Ron's Memorial will be at Monta Vista High School gym Friday, Feb. 18 at 3 p.m. In lieu of flowers donations can be made to the Ron Freeman Memorial Fund, care of Monta Vista High School, 21840 McClellan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014. Published in San Jose Mercury News/San Mateo County Times on February 3, 2011

Please immediately correct this error. Thank you

96.41.104.165 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Moved here, originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, in order to bring it to more people's attention to fix if needed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

I have removed the the sentence about Mr. Freeman's death (and the preceding sentence which was added at the same time) as it is unsourced and it doesn't seem clear that the article copied above is about the same person. I will have a look for some sources to clarify this either way.--Kateshortforbob _talk 07:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently rewrote Xiaxue; could someone BLP-check it?

The article on the controversial Singaporean celebrity blogger Xiaxue has a history of BLP problems. I recently rewrote the article and aim to make it my 7th GA. However, I am not very familiar with the details of the BLP policy, so I would like my version to be checked for BLP compliance. If there are any violations, please assume good faith, correct them and explain them to me (and should you need any clarification regarding facts or sources, feel free to ask). Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple small changes, otherwise it looks okay to me. I didn't check all the sources in detail however. Borock (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nader dahabi biography

place of birth is Amman - Jordan and not Syria, and was born to Jordanian parents and not Syrian parents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.24.194 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are talking about the above article. I see that reference 2 in the article (here), says "Minister of Transport Nader Dahabi was born in Amman, in 1946." Please edit the article to fix it, or click "discussion" at the top of the article to go to its talk page, and put a new section on that page explaining what needs to be done. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Granger

Newly-created article which appears to have a very negative slant. Subject is the former head of NHS Connecting for Health, responsible for introducing an IT system which has come in for criticism. I'm concerned about the general neutrality and tone of the article. January (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I did some cleanup, and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little more tidying. Article seemed to have been written from a opinionated position. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

Has an editor seeking to add material which is unreferenced and unsourced, and quite contentious. Romoval of such at [12] was reverted, second removal was met with [13] and the unhelpful edit summary of Removal of all non-referenced content, as exemplified by Collect. The specific prior claims (?) were defamatory, and the current claim about a minor appears afoul of WP:BLP (not copied here as BLP applies here as well!). More eyes needed - as this edoitor seems a tad determined on the issue of father and son. Collect (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a case of school bullying. Editor has now reverted to WP:POINT. John lilburne (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits of Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs) appear to be to insert this material which is clearly intended to bully a child. The username is also clearly part of the harassment per this edit. Is there any reason why this editor should be allowed to continue? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, perhaps we should oversight these edits? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation reveals editors ReliableAuthority (talk · contribs), Cvanrietschoten (talk · contribs) and HarbieHencock (talk · contribs) with interesting contribution histories. The principal or only edits are to Viscount Waverley and John_Anderson,_3rd_Viscount_Waverley and concern the Viscount's marriage, divorce and the legitimacy of his children. It seems to me that this might be part of a pattern of cyber-bullying. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarbieHencock for these editors. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with by various people at AN/I, thanks to all concerned. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Arnaiz Villena

Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami and Trigaranus are spoiling Antonio Arnaiz-Villena biography with their opinions as pointed out bu User:Zero .They were apparent linguists that later become interested only just on the false legal accusations that rised against Arnaiz-Villena after publishing a forbidden(!) genetics paper on Palestinians.This is now in the page.They do not let clarify what WP asks for update or references.Symbio04 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbio4 has no idea what he is doing on Wikipedia. He simply can't edit. I have no idea what his interest is in this article, which has a very checkered history in terms of content and editors, and I don't feel like going backwards to look at all the controversies, including sockpuppet investigations, etc., but Symbio4 appears to be a single purpose account, and although for a while the article was quiet, he's come back with a vengeance and won't listen to reason. At present, regardless of any other editors he accuses of whatever, he is the problem. And I've run out of reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23,my friend,if you threaten somebody who is trying to arrange a BLP (which is full of subjective opinions and plain lies), it would be preferable you quit WP. Where is it stated that A-V blamed on a Jewish lobby? Corrupted Spanish newspapers,gossips…? When attack started against A-V.Human Immunology Editor,Nicole Succiu-Foca said in 2002 that many pro-Jewish people had asker her A-V dismissal. I insist if you are not prepared to study a WP topic in deep,please do not touch it.Iberomesornix (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only gets worse. Now we have another editor adding a quote from Villena complaining that he was the victim of the "Jewish lobby". Of course, the quote is miserably out of context, but that doesn't seem to matter. The cited source is contextual, but the quote is a separate add-on to the sourced article that was Villena's response to a different incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Arnaiz puppets has written here many miserable accussations (did you now that according to him I am a secret agent in a conspiracy against him?). He has written here in the WIkipedia that there is a conspiracy of editors working for the Secret Services against him. He has added many unsourced claims even in the article, and, for instance, he asked to delete Prof. De Hoz references accusing him of libel (here, but not in the Court), as he asked to delete any reference which criticised his linguistic fringe theories. For once, there is an accusation of his that it is really sourced and that is EXACTLY in the context of the reason he claimed when accused in an interview in a newspaper for which he had written (it is what HE said when answered on the accusations against him). The quote puts exactly the question in its place, providing Arnaiz's point of view. To disregard this, only because not favourable, would be an editorial intervention. (Besides this, the theory, tall story, that he is a victim of a political conspiration is something that he is repeating here once and again ad nauseam) Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've bowed out from editing the article for the moment (although not because of Iberomesornix's absurd comments). I'm awaiting the outcome of the SPI investigation before doing anything else. It would still help, though, if other editors would take an interest in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the SP investigation and precedents of this case (with more on the same) do not forget the "deeds" of user Arnaiz1 who claimed to be Arnaiz, was blocked as puppet and had the same writing ticks in the signing tag: [14], [15]. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Tri Nguyen‎

An IP keeps re-inserting which apartment the article subject lives in. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested temporary semi-protection of this article. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My request for temporary semi-protection of the article was declined on the grounds that only one IP address is offending. If this IP offends against this article again the situation should be raised at WP:AIV for action against this IP's vandalism. Dolphin (t) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

Kate Bornstein

On Kate Bornstein's article, there is a pronoun dispute.

Kate Bornstein uses the gender neutral pronouns "ze" and "hir". This was changed twice, but reverted each time. Editors who edit hir's page keep using female pronouns even outside of the article even though ze actively uses the neutral pronouns and discusses this in hir's speaking engagements and books.

While this may seem like a small issue of technicalities, I cannot emphasize enough how offensive it is to not allow some one's preferred pronoun to be used. Especially with in Queer Studies - a field in which Bornstein plays a prominent roll.

For easy reference and both sides arguments, here is the talk page --Sanctusorium (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article be recast to avoid personal pronouns. Write about "Bornstein" and "Borstein's writing". Although Bornstein is entitled to use unusual pronouns, it would be a violation of neutrality in my opinion to write Bornstein's biography in Bornstein's own literary style. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. we don't substitute lower case letters for upper case at E. E. Cummings just because he did. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kreayshawn

The article Kreayshawn had major problems with vandalism, saying that she is "white trash", etc. I've tried to revert all of them, but I might have missed some. It seems like this article has been heavily vandalised recently, so I just wanted to give a heads up, and recommend that maybe someone go through the sources and make sure that everything is correct. I reverted to an older version that looked like it had less vandalism, but I still found a few problems. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection, which has now been done. However, somebody still might want to go and verify all of the information in the sources, given the level of vandalism. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena issue #2

This is a completely different issue from the one regarding this article already raised above, so I am listing it separately to avoid confusing the two. The subject of this page has published idiosyncratic theories about the Basque language. After (not very objectively) stating the theories, several people insist on adding this:

This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, Semitic, Indo-European, and Mesoamerican scholarship. Phoenician, Akkadian/Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are transparently Semitic languages, and Arnaiz-Villena excludes the rest of the Semitic languages from his family; Egyptian and Berber along with Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and generations of linguists have been unable to find a connection between Berber and Basque or Afro-Asiatic and Basque; and Hittite is widely acclaimed as a key in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, which Arnaiz-Villena acknowledges is completely unrelated to Basque.

It is a strong opinion that the subject's theory is bunk, in the voice of the article, with no citation. I tried to calmly explain on the talk page that opinions have to be sourced, and that negative opinions about living people really really have to be sourced. But all I'm getting is argument like that the opinion is "uncontroversial among linguists". Can someone please explain the rules to these people? Zero^talk 10:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain better which points you think to be unduly unsourced, because after reading Trigaranus comment it seems that all are obvious things, but maybe I missunderstood.

As I see it, it is af if someone (call him Mr. X) writes that sun orbits around Earth and Mars around the Moon (yes,as absurd as that) and ask to provide references to stating that Mr. X's theories are absurd. A reference for the Earth orbiting the Sun, another for the Sun is a star, etc.... Do you think a reference would be necessary?

You can search the wikipedia, in the articles of any of these languages if there is any controversy on whether Phoenician is a Semitic language, on whether Champollion deciphered Egyptian hyeroglyphs, whether Hittite is an Indo-European language, whether Hammburabi's monolite is a legal corpus....

If hypothetical Mr. X wrote that "Romeo and Julieta" is not a play, but a mistical text in Basque on the cult to the Great Mother, would be necessary a reference? Because this is the level of absurdity we are talking of.Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big error in your analogy. Almost everyone on Earth knows that Mars doesn't orbit the Moon, but it would be a big surprise if even 1 in 10,000 people know anything at all about the origins of Basque. People who come to this article and see a claim about it are entitled to ask "who says?". If it is all so obvious and well-known, it should be a piece of cake to source it! But that is not the reason I brought it to this page, rather than to WP:NORN. It is not permitted for editors to insert their own unsourced opinions into articles, especially negative opinions about living people. Why is that so hard to understand? Zero^talk 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view, is that everybody can use Wikipedia itself for such obvious questions. You can add internal links on Semitic and Indo-European.

No, that is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary authority of its own but only reports what "reliable sources" say. Of course we can link one Wikipedia article to another, but we cannot use one Wikipedia article as a source for another, see WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. Zero^talk 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. In any case, I think my idea is not exactly that, but that in these cases is not a use of Wikipedia as "source", but as a reference for further details if needed (always from the viewpoint that in linguistics it is something very obvious) were bibliographyh and details are included. But I suppose it is rather a subjective difference, so, no problem. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you can see here another one of the puppets Iberomesornix, and see their "constructive" style.

A personal observation.Why users which are Arnaiz-Villena (or, at best, persons very very very close to him) are allowed not only to edit his own biography, but also once and again to make edit warrings and to launch personal attacks, insults and even criminal accusations that even had to be deleted from the page history?. Quousque tandem...? It is illogical to ask to carry out ALL the rules? He is taken advantage of tolerance, and that only causes more problems and wastes of time. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic cave wall signs contradict much of the linguists dogma and even dates of Americas peopling.Should you “linguists”(lawyers)try to defamate and destroy Genevieve von Petzinger? [16]Iberomesornix (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Zero: In that case, in order for that statement (the 'flatly contradicts') to find your approval, we need to add a reference for every language family mentioned therein? I really want you to be aware of the fact that AAV's linguistic theories are not theories but rather absurd fancies perfectly oblivious and actively hostile to evidence and academic refutation. A linguistic theory undoubtedly deserves to be weighed against the available evidence (which often supports it), and an article that does not give it due credit would be incomplete; but these are ramblings covered in superficially respectable coating, by a man who is as proficient in linguistics as the linguists who oppose him are in genetics. It is bogus, irrespective of it coming from a living person, and although it claims to be, it is not linguistics. Therefore I really do suggest what I have suggested on the article's talk page: to link to one academic page presenting what debate on language families there actually is in scholarly debate, and to leave it at that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trigaranus,have you ever read any of the A-V books?They are full of references.Transcription texts are taken from somebody else. You are against A-V without any objective justification,even telling lies about legal affaires.Are not you just a dedicated linguist?.Your opinion togethet with those of Dumu Eduba,Akerbeltz and Kwamikagami should not be allowed into this WP:BLPIberomesornix (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibe, I have. And let us make a pact right here and now: I am not gonna meddle in genetics and try to convince you that DNA is actually made of microscopic strands of candyfloss, and you are not gonna try and tell me that the jolly word-matching you or AAV do on the side is linguistics. I am sorry, but it's been read, it's been measured, and it's been found a pile of utter rot and a good old waste of everybody's time. I would not put it that harshly if you weren't so obstinately claiming that it has any linguistic value whatsoever. (And for the love of language and anyone reading your comments, please hit the space bar right after you've pressed the comma or period keys.) This is not about the very slim chance that any reputable linguist might be convinced to throw 150 years of diachronic linguistics on the trash because AAV noticed the magic of homophonic or vaguely assonant syllables across language groups, but about Zero's request that we ought to quote the academic literature to label every single sausage in a factory entirely dedicated to the production and distribution of baloney. Trigaranus (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can make pacts .I do not mind your keen persecution.What is SPI?

Trigaranus,you have forgotten the work of John Bengtson,the late Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin and Merritt Ruhlen.All of them relate Basque language with Dene Caucasian languages including Basque[[17]].I will add the proper information these week.However,this is not a matter of a BLP ,thus I will put most of the staff in one or two lines:those supporters and those who are against.In addition,most of what A A-V has proposed had already been proposed before without such a detail,i.e.: [18].This is because I do not believe that you are against A-V because his Basque language work,but because another unknown matter,particularly after your sudden twist to defamate A-V with spurious legal matters. A-V is respected by all geneticians.He has written many papers (more than 320)on it and you focus his BLP on just 2 papers.Scientific reviewers and A-V geneticists fellows have accepted all his work ,except Palestinian paper and Greek paper in WP (both of them were peer reviewed,also).We must emphasize that the main results of both papers have been repeated by other laboratories (as specified on the Greek one in WP,but not with Palestinian one).I will have to summarize this also and put Mike Hammer and other results in Palestinians.(COPY)Symbio04 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some attention from uninvolved administrators please? Zero^talk 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trigaranus,A-V methodology is explained here in short[19].Usually,linguists vary methodologies according to each case and they are not critizised(by linguits).I have been asked to request if you could send me one of your references in linguistics for doing a criticism,as an exercise.Symbio04 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much easier. Here is the link to the Long Rangers web and the MOther Tongue journal HERE, where linguists as Starostin or Bengtson (who you have mentioned as your collegues) have a prominent role. Would you be so nice as to quote a link on this pages and journals were your alleged linguistic researches are quoted as something serious? Otherwise the conclusion is obvious: even the Long Rangers consider your "researches" useless.

BTW the scientific level of your usko methodology is just the same that to sequence DNA using a ouija, you now A....T.....G...C (and then claiming that there is a conspiracy because the ouija method is cheaper and the industry wanst to keep its money....., and that geneticist are no scintific people, but closed to new methods). Is it now crystal clear which are your merits?

But of course you already know all this, I guess you are filling the wikipedia with complains only to say to your friends and customers "you see, I am a great scientific, like Copernicus, like Darwin, but there is a conspiracy of evil people.. look the wikipedia how am I libeled.... and my complains". You fill the pages with complains as an smokescreen, to make the discussion glibberish and hard to read. So you can say that there are no scientific criticism but personal attacks. Just a mockery. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lissack

This is Michael Lissack. The article about me keeps getting re-edited to suggest that I pled guilty to charges which I DID NOT. I have put the correct record (with a link to the law itself) back several times and another editor keeps removing the link and changing the language back to words which I find to be inaccurate, libelous and defamatory. HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.10.194 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than starting an edit war, if you are the subject of an article and believe that it defames you, then go to Wikipedia:Libel for advice. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've come to the right place! Please bear with us, as we're a herd of cats, a bunch of mostly anonymous volunteers with no direct relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the site. Speaking of anonymity, we have no way to verify that you're really M. Lissack (though no reason to doubt it either). Be that as it may, if there's an error to fix it usually gets taken care of one way or another. It's quite possible that one of the more experienced users or administrators here will look into this and deal with it. A few pointers in the meanwhile, or in case it doesn't happen promptly. Please review WP:NLT. I can certainly sympathize if you feel you've been libeled, but the Wikipedia community's self-protective mechanism when people start mentioning legal claims is to shut off discussion. Feel free to post messages and requests to individual users' talk pages (or email them, if they have email enabled on their page) - keeping in mind that legal threats are right out, and harsh talk usually makes things worse. There are a lot of content policies and guidelines about what should and should not be in the encyclopedia, and you've obviously found WP:BLP, the rule about poorly sourced information that may harm living people (a super-set of information that is simply unverifiable or unreliably sourced). You can also escalate the matter via the WP:OTRS system, which as far as I know works confidentially to resolve any problems if the usual rules break down. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I expected to agree with the complainer here, but I did a little research and discovered his comments are not exactly accurate. What New York law calls a "violation" is not the same as a parking ticket, but includes things that most places, I think, would call low-grade misdemeanours. You can get fifteen days in jail for them, according to another part of the source he cites.[20] That's not exactly what you'd get for overtime parking. I've also never heard of a parking ticket type crime where you got put on any sort of "probation" for a year where you had to stay away from your "victims", as this article reports.[21] Isn't there a lawyer from New York who hangs around Wikipedia who could chime in on this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question currently reads, "Later in 1998, Lissack was arrested in New York on behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He was charged with using the Internet to harass executives at Smith Barney by posting messages that solicited phone calls to the company's headquarters and, in some instances, to the homes of executives. [13] He later pled guilty to the civil violation [14] of second degree harassment [15] and acknowledged that he sent phony harassing e-mail to Salomon Smith Barney employees.[16][17][18][19]" and a new user account named MichaelLissack has stated, "As requested by several editors I now have created an account so that I can be tracked by my name. Many thanks for the exchanges I believe the article now fairly depicits (sic) events without defaming me." in this diff [22]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to take into account all the comments and still make things accurate. The parking ticket reference is out and there is just a straightforward reference to the civil violation and its case law. Per another comment I added the SEC sanction and provided both the link to the sanction itself and to the book chapter describing what happened. My issue was a simple one -- I never pled guilty to a crime and it is just hurtful and wrong to state that I did. Hopefully the full exchange has gotten all of this to a better place Michaellissack (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the passage about Lissack's guilty plea. First, I could find no support for him having pled guilty to a "civil violation". If I missed something, please show me. Second, the passage cited to primary sources for statutes for no good reason, as well as a blog for no good reason. I removed those references. I also added a sentence that states that Lissack was neither jailed nor fined based on his guilty plea, which was stated in one of the cited sources. As far as I can tell, the passage now conforms to the reliable sources that I left in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: There is a discussion about this same issue going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Michael_Lissack_article_legal_claims ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the pointer. I posted a comment at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELP If you read the statute (which is why I had cited it) the very last line states clearly that second degree harassment is a violation. see http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0240.26_240.26.html the blog was cited as it explained very clearly that ALL VIOLATIONS are civilk not criminal see http://www.newyorkcriminallawyerblog.com/2009/02/criminal_law_101_defining_felo_1.html I have no problem witn taking responsibility for what I did but why does everyone here seem to insist that it is okay to imply I did much worse? I never pled guilty to any crime. Please put back the references which make that clear. (BTW the current rewrite otherwise reads much better than prior versions) Michaellissack (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must thank everyone. The article reads much better and I have been treated fairly. AND in less than 24 hours!! Thanks Michaellissack (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc J. Lane

Article seems to have been written by subject and reads as an advertisement. Following many of the references ultimately leads back to subject's website. Article seems to violate Biographies of Living Persons standards and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraythe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at this, I agree. The sources do ultimately take you back to their personal website and that does violate the 3rd Party Referencing policy. ~~I will nominate this for deletion.~~ Thank you for pointing this out. JoeGazz ▲ 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a second opinion on this one, looking again, the sources do seem to be semi-reliable and unrelated. Not sure on this. JoeGazz ▲ 19:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Scully

It appears an unknown user has made defamatory/libelous posts about the son of the above. Although this has now been reversed by another user, it still shows up on the history page. Is there any way of permanently deleting the comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Scully&action=historysubmit&diff=436183130&oldid=436183028

Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio Gutiérrez

Additional eyes on this one please. A new editor has been turning it into a PR-style promo piece and has been reverted several times, including twice by me today. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now semi-protected, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

We need some input on a template change which occurred today. Without any prior discussion the "Template:Birth date and age" default was changed from "mf" to "df". this affects 100s of 1000s of articles all over wikipedia. Perhaps none more so than in this project. Let me add that I have no problem with the WP:BOLDness of this change but I do think that a) it should be changed back until b) a larger discussion comes to a consensus on this. The current discussion is here Template talk:Birth date and age#Current format. Thanks ahead of time for any input that members of this project can add. MarnetteD | Talk 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on

User:Poyani (contributions, edit count) restored contentious poorly sourced material to the talk page of CounterPunch, after I had redacted "[name removed], the Swedish feminist" to "[a] Swedish feminist".

My talk page discusses this event, and whether reliable sources name the complainant/victim: User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Rape_Complaintant_and_WP:BLP.

User:Poyani wrote that "I am going to mention this person's name on Julian Assenge's talk page. Feel free to file a report on BLP noticeboards. I want to test this.", so I alert BLPN now. User:Poyani added the name.

Please see the extensive discussion in your archives. 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lifting a hand ... to help good, wise, or great, to bar that foul storm out, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor AndyTheGrump noted the BLP problems with publicizing victims' names at the talk page of Julian Assange. This seems to have been accepted. Relieved, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Hill

There is an individual or individuals have been repeatedly posting partisan and opinion based, false, information and removing facts about this person from his term in Congress. I think it is improper to be using Wikipedia as a forum for political rhetoric and hope this can be resolved.

Thank you.

Feona Bessemer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febessemer (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biographical page that is being defamed with political rhetoric. Please remove the page or lock it after a consensus on it's content is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febessemer (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent reversion of sourced, relevant material was unwarranted. I've restored it and reworded the assertions to conform more closely to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An admin fully protected the article to January 1, 2012. Seems to me like a very long time for full protection, but, then again, I don't know how much leeway an admin has in these circumstances and whether it was justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the editor who started this thread (1) has no other edits outside this page (see WP:SPA) and (2) was just blocked for edit warring on said page. At a glance this appears to be an effort either by Rick Hill, a supporter or his campaign to scrub the article of unsavory content. elektrik SHOOS 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulson

About a year ago someone created a redirect for the article Paulson & Co to the BLP John Paulson. [23] This seems inappropriate to me. If others agree and will advise me on how to undue the redirect, I will re-create the Paulson & Co article and remove info about the company that is currently in the BLP. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Paulson & Co (no period) does not exist as an article, whereas Paulson & Co. (with period) is the redirect. If the latter is the appropriate title for the article about the company, just edit that page to remove the redirect code (the #REDIRECT [[John Paulson#Hedge fund]] stuff) and create the article there. – ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ukexpat, I'll do that and give you a shout if I get stuck. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson (footballer)

Mr Thomson is a Scottish footballer who was recently placed on the sex offenders register after some questionable online conversations with underage girls. My question is, is there too much about it in the article? Specifically, should it be mentioned in the lede? Thanks. doomgaze (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the lead as I think it is rather undue weight. However, the section discussing it seems to me to be justified, given the wide coverage and the impact on his career and on the club. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it belongs in the lead. It's one of the most significant events in his career. WP:LEAD says the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Christopher Connor (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Leonard

I had previously posted the accurate information that Glenn Leonard is under a permanent federal injunction which prohibits him from commercial use of the name "Temptations" in any manner. I posted the case number and docket number of that permanent injunction, which is a matter of public record. Accurate reporting of a public record cannot be libelous. That posting was removed and the article now reports that Glenn Leonard currently performs as the "Temptations Revue" -- which appears to be a violation of the express terms of the permanent injunction.

Case Title: Williams v. SBE etc., et al. Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California Judge: Hon. Gary A. Feess Case Number: 07-CV-07006-GAF Case filed: 2007 Permanent Injunction Entered: 2/5/2010 (Docket #328) Corrected Permanent Injunction Entered: 3/26/10 (Docket #339)

Full Text of Corrected Permanent Injunction:

Upon the settlement agreement and stipulation of Plaintiff OTIS WILLIAMS and Defendant GLENN LEONARD, entry of permanent injunction is GRANTED, as follows:

Defendant GLENN LEONARD, his employees, officers, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in active concert and/or participation with any of them, who shall receive actual notice of this Order, are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from engaging in the following activities, or in any of them:

(1) Directly or indirectly infringing upon the goodwill associated with plaintiff’s service mark “The Temptations”;

(2) Directly or indirectly infringing upon the trade name “The Temptations” or using plaintiff’s trade name in any manner, including generally but not limited to advertising, promoting, performing, and/or exhibiting the services of defendant LEONARD or of anyone else that infringes said trade name;

(3) Engaging in any conduct that tends falsely to represent , or is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive purchasers, defendant LEONARD’s customers, and/or members of the public believe, that the actions of defendant LEONARD, including the advertisement, promotion, performance, and/or exhibition of any performance or performers under the name “The Temptations,” or any similar incarnation of the name, are sponsored, approved, or licensed by plaintiff, or are in some way associated, affiliated, or connected with plaintiff and/or with “The Temptations”;

(4) Affixing, applying, annexing, or using in connection with the advertisement, promotion, performance, and/or exhibition of any performance or performers under the name “The Temptations,” or any similar incarnation of the name, a false description or representation, including words or false symbols tending to describe or represent such goods or services as being those of plaintiff;

(5) Diluting and/or infringing plaintiff’s trade name “The Temptations,” and/or damaging plaintiff’s goodwill, reputation, and business;

(6) Effecting assignments or transfers, granting purported licenses, forming new entities or associations, or utilizing any other means or device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in paragraph (1) through (5), above.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ P. 54 (b), the court hereby makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and expressly directs entry of this judgment of permanent injunction, forthwith.

The Court further Orders that the counterclaim of GLENN LEONARD on file herein is dismissed forthwith, with prejudice.

The Court further Orders that the separate related action entitled Live Gold etc., et al., v. UMG etc., et al. on file in this District Court as Case No. 09-cv-00417 is likewise dismissed forthwith, with prejudice.

This Order is without prejudice as to the joint and several obligation of GLENN LEONARD in respect to this Court’s previous finding of contempt and award of sanctions thereon as against the said Defendant GLENN LEONARD, in respect to which this Court retains jurisdiction.

The effective date of this corrected order is February 5, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 /s/ Gary A. Feess,

                        Judge of the United States District Court  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.118.138 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal material is not really of any relevance to Wikipedia. However, the entire section concerning his current activity was completely unreferenced, so I've removed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Garn

I'm not sure if this is the correct Noticeboard for this. If it isn't please forgive me and I will move it.

The Kevin Garn article is being used by User:Nottoohappy as a wp:Coatrack to attack the LDS Church. His edits have been reverted numbersous times, and he has been warned against these types of edits, but the user has been repeatedly reinserted his claims into that article such as "No action was taken as the sexual abuse of underage women is a tradition in the LDS Church". In tone and claims made, this also appears to have some kind of a relationship to the previous issues that occured on the West Ridge Academy article.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite uncertain that the complaint to the LDS church is actually germane to the BLP, as it appears to only be there to reinforce the fact that Garn is a LDS member. Collect (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was crosslinked to Jon Grunseth, an unrelated politician who was involved in a nude hot tubbing scandal. I removed both links and have watchlisted both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Street

Article seems to have been written by subject, and reads as an advertisement. It contains much more information than would seem to be necessary when compared to other articles about similar persons, and does not seem to achieve the general notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosaley (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is way too casual, but it would be helpful if you would (1) explain what detail is unnecessary and (2) why you haven't raised these issues on the Street Talk page rather than here as I see no real BLP issues. It also seems odd that your very first edit as a registered user is to post this message here. Any reason for that? I have done some copy edits, some small removals, etc. The article needs more work to be encyclopedic, but it's fairly well-sourced and I don't see a notability issue, although I haven't gone through and checked all the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little work on it, in particular removing all the in-line external links, per WP:EL. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

misti traya

No sources listed. reads like it was written by subject or subject's friend. contains trivia and not much noteworthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.184.240 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It is completely unsourced, reads like a fan magazine, and has too much trivia. I've tagged it and corrected and removed some of the more egregious material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Q

The Stacey Q article is extremely long, wordy, contains way too many obscure details, POV, and the subject of the article was known primarily in the 1980's for one hit single. I think other editors need to to trim a little fat off of it because it's overwhelmingly exhaustive and impossible to read and digest in it's current form. Thank you. 208.54.86.246 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata roy

Regarding removal content "2G spectrum..." in Article "Subrata Roy"

Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.103.104 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was recently semi-protected (at my request) following repeated blanking of sourced content by this and other IP addresses. The IP address has been asked to discuss the disputed material on the talk page of the article, and has not done so (even now).

Instead, the IP address has posted a legal notice identical to the above, to the user talk pages of six editors including myself, plus the talk page of an IP address. Although this is slightly vague as legal threats go, the widespread distribution of it seems calculated to have a chilling effect on editing. Please would a passing admin deal with this IP address per WP:NLT. (A similar request has been made at ANI here).

Comments about the appropriateness of the disputed section are also welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a legal thret to me, ask an admin to block. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307 has blocked the IP address for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since i have contributed majorly on this article hence want to bring to the notice of eminent editor a line from policies related to BLP, it quotes - " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,..........and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011

Chen Jue

I found it via wp:LIVINGDEAD on plwiki and I found death date, no ref, external links (even letters are unreadable for me "没有找到相关内容，您也许对下面内容感兴趣"), BLP notice and talkpage and death date. No google data but is is ulikely that she is alive (born in 1903). What should I do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed invalid interwiki, but still - what to do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Antonelli

Johnny Antonelli's skills DID NOT suddenly diminsh leading to his retirement. I spoke to him on 6/23/11, and this is what he stated: Mr. Antonelli retired at 32 years old because he grew tired of the traveling. He was offered a contract by the expansion New York Mets but turned it down. He simply did not want to travel anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maphfa (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about his retirement and another sentence in the article, both of which were negative, have been removed as unsourced. What Antonelli told you is also supported by a third-party source, so I've added it. The article is still largely unsourced (it's been tagged since July 2010), but I left in non-controversial material for the moment. It would be great if you could find some sources for what's in the article. Otherwise, unfortunately, unsourced parts will probably be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kugler

Sean Kugler attended DeSales Catholic High School and graduated in 1984. The school is located in Lockport, NY and not in Geneva, NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.222.130 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Raitt

I'm not well-informed about Canadian politics, but my preliminary impression after reading the article is that is seems to place undue weight on several controversies that reflect negatively on Liss Raitt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Witulski

Florian Witulski has made no significant or original contribution to his field. He is purely an inexperienced citizen journalist desperate for attention. His biography should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.33.129 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave

The entry on Andy Cave is a piece that - IMHO - is a summing up all the positive and good about this climber (must be said, he's a person of some name). The history shows it's been built up by only very few editors, and especially User:Elaine bull solely focus on this article. It's a [self-]promotional article in essence and as I cant find the correct template [which I'm always having troubles with], I'd like to know whether insertion of the following one; {{vfd-sp}} would be correct, or whether you'd suggest another template. [And does one stuff that on the page or on the talk page?] Qwrk (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave is notable. Threeafterthree has done a good job trimming the puffery. The article could be expanded - reliable sources are readily available. I've got it on my watchlist and will try to chip in when I've got time. Cullen328 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuki

DAJF is constantly reediting the profile of Fiona Graham - Sayuki - to write in that she is no longer working, and other things that are unfounded. As a living person, this affects her career and is unwarranted. Other editors have cited from newspaper and valid sources that she is, in fact, working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.90.82 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change to the article for at least three reasons. First, you need to learn how to cite and edit. The formatting you introduced in the article was awful. Second, you need to take this content dispute to the article's Talk page. Third, as far as I can tell, the source you want to include about what Graham said in response is in the article without your edits. Now, there are other changes you're making that, frankly, I can't follow because of the way you word, format, and cite them. But the central issue, as you frame it, has been addressed. If it hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction, then take it to the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors rather than edit-war about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefield (band)

There is a minor dispute at the above article. The article at present gives the hometown of the band, a very small town in Australia. This is independently and reliably sourced and has been publically released on several occasions (see [24] and [25]). In my opinion, the information is reliably sourced, encyclopedic in nature and non-controversial. Rowie235 (talk · contribs) has removed the name of the town on several occasions, citing his/her (good faith) concern that it is an invasion of privacy and may put members of the band at risk, considering their age (the youngest is 12) and the size of the town. See here for more detail on his/her concerns. The advice/mediation of a third party would be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their claim of "illegal to post information" seems very unlikely to be accurate. However, their concerns are understandable, given the place is so small - more a village than a town really. Would the article really lose much by just saying they are "...from a small town in rural Victoria"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article rather than on your and Rowie's Talk pages. That said, I don't see any legitimate basis for withholding the hometown of the band if it's published in reliable sources. Rowie appears to have a conflict as a "personal friend of the band members". Also, even Rowie doesn't say the band members don't want the information on Wikipedia. He says only that he talked to them about it. I also don't get his contention that it would be "illegal" to post such information. In any event, I favor inclusion of the information. If one of the band members wants to complain directly about privacy issues (although it's kind of hard to believe they would so so), they can do so themselves rather than through a conduit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article" Agree entirely and having the discussion spread over two talk pages and here does not help either. Next time, I will apply a bit of forethought. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time taken to discuss this matter. I will contact the band and ask them to resolve it either through their own means or through my account (they don't have a wiki account).--Rowie235 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cat is out of the bag, if it was a problem for them then they would not have given the information to news.com.au or would have asked them to redact the information after it was posted, Wikipedia is not censored and as this information is widely published in reliable sources, there seems no reason to excluded it from the article. It does not matter what the band want to appear here, they have no right of veto. Mtking (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an uninvolved party (I put the town in in the first place with a good reliable source and repeatedly put it back when it was being removed without explaination) but I still think it belongs. It has been widely reported, including by major reputable news organisation who don't like getting in trouble by illegally publishing information about minors. Wikipedia articles should be based on what is published in independent reliable sources, not based on the preferred version of parties connected with the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appasami

Mr. G. Appasami was born in Pondicherry, India in 1980. He received his Master of Science degree in Mathematics, Master of Computer Applications degree and Master of Technology degree in Computer Science and Engineering from Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. He received his Master of Philosophy in Computer Science from Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India.Currently he is faculty in Dr. Pauls Engineering College, Villupuram and affiliated to Anna University of Technology Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. He is a life member of Indian Society for Technical Education, Computer Society of India, International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology (Singapore) and International Association of Engineers. He has published more papers in national/international journals and conference proceedings. His Area of interests includes Network Security, image processing and web technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.195.186 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good for him. May I ask what is the point of posting that here? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pasquale conte

much of the information in your article with regard to pasquale conte are unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory. I believe most of the information that is incorrect has been placed by his younger brother who his is bitter towards. pasquale conte jr. you may contact me to clarify anything you wish at [removed email] Other websites with erroneous information are not considered to be valid sources. passing along information you know to be untrue does not validate it in any way . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.11.61 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to be New York Times articles. Are they being misused in any way? You have to be very specific. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be more critical! Is a "free website" at http://members.fortunecity.com/ a reliable source for a BLP saying that a currently living person was part of a "crew" that was "heavily involved in heroin trafficking"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - trimmed slightly. More eyes welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

joseph banzhaf III

The Joe Banzhaf III article, absurdly, ends in 1981.

[1] ttp://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6

[2] ttp://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf

[1]

[2]

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