Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Osiriscorleone (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 24 February 2012 (→‎Dana Loesch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Simon R. Gladdish

    Resolved
     – Article deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon R. Gladdish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Has twice been prodded, both templates subsequently removed without the issues being resolved. I've had lengthy discussions with the article's author, who has admitted to conflict of interest. Subject doesn't appear to be notable, claims are not reliably sourced--this looks like a vanity article. Does anyone want to take this to AFD? Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed unsourced content, especially content that went over the line as far as WP:BLP, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COAT to name a few. More eyes probably needed here. I'm inclined to agree with the IP, but disinclined to nominate at this time (for no particular reason, sorry). If the IP is so inclined, please register an account and start at WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The cleanup was much appreciated. Always better to have multiple objective eyes on a problematic bio. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I could provide some help. I hope other editors here will have a look as well. I've also left a note at talk regarding the BLP cleanup and notability in general. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After spending some time looking into the subject, I decided AfD was right for this article after all. See nomination link at the top of this section. JFHJr (㊟) 16:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Bamber

    Jeremy Bamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm appreciate some uninvolved input to help settle a dispute about whether this article should be named after the event or the living person. Apologies for the length.

    The article is about the murder in England of five family members in 1985 in White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy: two parents, their adult daughter, and her six-year-old twin sons. It became a famous case in the UK in part because of the twists and turns of the investigation. It was first handled by police as a murder-suicide by the adult daughter who had schizophrenia, but the couple's son, Jeremy Bamber, ended up being convicted; the motive was said to be a large inheritance. The murders have stayed in the public eye because Bamber, who is still in jail, says he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

    I've been working on the article slowly since 2010, with a view to bringing it to FAC, and it has increasingly felt inappropriate to title it as though it were a biography. Best practice is to use the event name. In this case, the name several reliable sources have used (e.g. book and film titles) is the White House Farm murders, which is currently a redirect.

    Analagous articles would be 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, not Raoul Moat (redirect only); Murder of Joanna Yeates, not Vincent Tabak (redirect only); Soham murders, not Ian Huntley (redirect only); Hungerford massacre, not Michael Ryan (redirect only); Dunblane school massacre, not Thomas Hamilton (dab only); Cumbria shootings, not Derrick Bird (redirect only). Where the person is deemed notable enough, a separate biography may be created, per WP:BLP1E. For example, 2011 Tucson shooting and Jared Lee Loughner, or Murder of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox.

    I've suggested on talk that we either have one article about the murders called White House Farm murders, or that we split it into a murders article and a biography. Splitting it would have the added benefit of shortening the murders article, which is currently too long but still has details missing.

    This is being resisted by two editors (Exok and Nick Cooper) who have cited various reasons (see Talk:Jeremy Bamber#Requested_move), including that not calling the murder article after Bamber would look like part of the campaign to secure his release, and that the title "White House Farm murders" is not in common-enough currency.

    The first point I reject entirely. As for the second, a number of high-quality reliable sources have used "White House Farm murders," including a 2001 Times editorial ("The White House Farm murders became one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past 20 years ..."); a 1993 Yorkshire Television film, The White House Farm Murders; a 1998 paper in Police Review "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985; a scholarly paper; and several book titles (e.g. The White House Farm Murders (1990). More examples below:

    Extended content
    Scholarly
    • D'Cruze, Shani; Walklate, Sandra L.; and Pegg, Samantha. "The White House Farm murders", in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006.
    • Shani D'Cruze is Reader in Gender and Women's History at Manchester Metropolitan University; Sandra Walklate is Eleanor Rathbone Chair of Sociology at the University of Liverpool; and Samantha Pegg is a lecturer at Nottingham Law School.
    Police
    • John Plimmer is a retired detective with West Midlands police.
    Film
    Book titles
    • Murder Casebook. The White House Farm Murders. Marshall Cavendish, 1990.
    • Wilkes, Roger. Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders. Penguin, 1994.
    • Powell, Claire. Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber. Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
    • Whittington-Egan, Richard. "The White House Farm Massacre," in Murder on File: The World's Most Notorious Killers. Neil Wilson Publishing Ltd, 2006.
    Examples of newspapers
    • "The White House Farm murders became one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past 20 years ..."
    • "Analysis of police negatives ... has found them incompatible with the principal prosecution case used to imprison Bamber for the White House Farm murders 25 years ago".
    • "... we may be witnessing the final chapter in the gruesome case of The White House Farm murders."
    • Detailed reports ... corroborate the initial police view that Bamber's schizophrenic sister Sheila Caffell committed the White House Farm murders in 1985."

    Any opinions from uninvolved editors that might help to settle this would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Slim. You say two editors are resisting a move. You're discounting the other oppose votes on the article's talk page? Exok (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, three of us (Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, and myself) agree to splitting the article in two; you and Nick oppose that; and one editor (BabbaQ) commented once against a move, but hasn't commented again on the split option. So yes, it's you and Nick that have resisted both proposals. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison with The Moors Murders doesn't really work since the aftermath of the original crime was not nearly so dominated by the actions and assertions of the perpetrators. Over half the current article describes Bamber's campaign to clear his name. Slim sees this content as fitting into the crime article, rather than the biography. It seems odd to have an article titled to a single event that covers over 25 years of ongoing - and often dramatic - developments not determined by the event but by a single person, Bamber. Exok (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article would summarize the other summary-style. The new evidence (as seen from the Bamber defence team perspective) must be placed in the murders article, because it questions the original investigation, and is being taken seriously by the high-quality press. But some of the other campaign material could go into the biography alone. It's hard to say in advance exactly what would fit where. It would have to be written up first to see what made most sense. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth pointing out - despite Slim's rather disingenuous account of the debate on the article's talk page - that Jeremy Bamber case was proposed as a title that would solve the problem a move is supposed to solve without resorting to a title - "White House Farm murders" - that doesn't really describe the article's contents or have much resonance for general readers. Slim rejects this out of hand. Exok (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've offered sources above for the name, so there is no reason to invent one. I'd appreciate it if you would not make any more personal attacks. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is covered by WP:CRIME. Although it may allow some subjectivity, Bamber should only get a biographical article if his crime is a "well-documented historic event", which I don't think it is. --FormerIP (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The murder article is getting long, and is likely to get longer. WP:CRIME makes provision for splitting off a biography sub-article where there is a length issue. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you're in the wrong starting place. If the article had started as "Bamber Murders" or whatever, then maybe now we would be looking at spinning off "Appeals cases of Jeremy Bamber" or whatever. I think what should be done now is firstly to recast the article so it is not a bio, then look at what the most sensible thing to spin off is. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't a biography; it just has the wrong title. I tried to rewrite the first sentence to make clearer that it was not a biography [1] (by not starting the article with his name), but I was reverted, so the current first sentence is a compromise. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By biography, I just mean an article that has a person's name as the title and starts "so and so is...". Change those two things and quite probably it is no longer a bio. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FormerIP's idea of having a - let's say - "White House Farm Murders" article ending with Bamber's conviction and then spinning off the appeals seems quite a strong one to me. Exok (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're suggesting removing from the main article the evidence Bamber's lawyers have gathered in his defence, and placing it elsewhere, that would make the sub-article a POV fork. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not be a fork based on POV, it would be a chronological break based on separate events. The appeals section would include material both favourable to Bamber's claims of innocence (new evidence) and counter to them (appeal judgement etc). It would not represent guilty or innocent views, but simple historical developments over time. This division would make far more sense than crime and biography. Exok (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be POV because it would leave in the main article the old evidence that saw him convicted, and would move into a sub-article the new evidence that challenges the old. That's the very definition of a POV fork. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bamber's defence would appear in the first article. The (current) rejection of Bamber's various appeals and applications would appear in the second. The only POV reflected in putting events into their chronological order is the perspective of unfolding history. Exok (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, the new evidence has only been developed in the last few years, so that has to be included in the main article, per NPOV. And it was developed during the appeals process, so the appeals can't be cut off. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that WP:NPOV states that where perspectives are challenged over time everything needs to be described at once. A more chronological unfolding of events would remove the need for the confusing digressions that repeatedly sidetrack the current article. Exok (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split and rename per SlimVirgin's proposed move. Unlike SV, Exok isn't arguing from the evidence and from what it points to, but from his own interpretation of the evidence, and that's the kind of thing we want to avoid. SlimVirgin has provided more than enough evidence in favor of her proposal, and frankly, the opposition to her proposal doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you can reasonably make that claim without considering the counter evidence that has been presented to SV's assertions. SV claimed that "White House Farm murders" is a common term, and has managed to identify two articles, one TV dramatisation, one book, and one magazine which use the phrase in their titles, and five newspaper reports that also use it.
    In contrast, there are four books, two magazines, and three TV documentaries that do not use the phrase in their titles. Most of these were identified before SV wrote her "evidence" list above, but which she evidently chose to ignore and not include. In addition, there are over five hundred printed newspaper and BBC website reports of the case, only ten (10) of which use the phrase "White House Farm murders" and most of these are merely references to either the book or TV dramatisation which include it in their titles.
    Furthermore, four books, two magazines, and three TV documentaries use Jeremy Bamber's name in their titles; in four instances the title consists of his name and nothing else. In the UK the case is known overwhelmingly by Bamber's name, and demonstrably not the phrase "White House Farm murders" which in fact is only used by a tiny minority of sources. The news media in particular hardly ever uses it, and the BBC has never done so. This is not an "interpretation" of the evidence - it is what the evidence clearly and unequivocably shows.
    Considering that Jeremy Bamber's name is by far the most widely recognised reference point to the original deaths, and that the page deals with his conviction and subsequent multiple appeals against that conviction, Jeremy Bamber case is the most logical name for the page, and a form already used in other instances (e.g. Sara Thornton case, Derek Bentley case, Stratton Brothers case, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Thanks everyone for the input. I'm hoping we have enough consensus now for an article split (Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, and myself on talk; Captain Screebo and Viriditas here) into White House Farm murders for the murders, and Jeremy Bamber for the biography. But if anyone else would like to add an uninvolved opinion here, that would still be very helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started to work here on the biography article. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Captain Screebo and Viriditas seemed to have made their decisions based solely on the skewed and cherry-picked "evidence" you presented. You made your own argument, and barely paid lip service to the mass of material that contradicts is, which is hardly a level playing field. You also ignored my requests for you to explain exactly which parts of the current page you think should properly reside on the separate pages you prose, i.e. the "biography" and the page using the name by which the event is clearly generally not known in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping for uninvolved input, Nick. Here is a selection of sources calling it the "White House Farm murders" from 1990-2012, including academic, police, film, books, some newspaper articles, and a Times editorial. That's sufficient to establish it as a title that has currency. And it makes sense to make the split, because the current article is too long. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with Slim again, I'm afraid Nick. First of all, what you say about myself and Viriditas is WP:OR and your (skewed) POV, I am totally uninvolved but after considering the precedents concerning the naming of crime-related articles and do the perpetrators get their own article, I concluded that SV's proposal was perfectly reasonable and more respectful of WP:BLP. As you may have heard, Wikipedia is about consensus and not just obstinately pushing for what one has decided is "the right solution". CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a fair discussion can result when it it predicated on cherry-picked evidence. If the numbers supported SV's initial move proposal, I would have happily accepted and supported it, but they demonstrably do not. Nick Cooper (talk)
    SV, no, you identified five instances of "White House Farm murders" appearing in titles (one book, one TV dramatisation, one magazine, and two articles), and five newspaper articles using the phrase. In contrast, it does not appear in nine book, programme or magazine titles, and over 500 print newspaper or BBC website articles do not use it, either. In fact, out of 67 reports, the BBC never uses it once. The "currency" of the phrase is clearly minute when taking account of the coverage of the event as a whole, especially in 2% of news reports (i.e. where we would expect to see a commonly recognised phrase established and used).
    I would note that when you first canvassed for a move to White House Farm murders, the only support you had was from 70.24.247.54 - before any counter-evidence was posted - whereas four editors opposed it (i.e. Exok, BabbaQ, Rothorpe, and myself), all on the grounds that "White House Farm muders" is not a commonly-recognised or used term for the events in question.
    You then shifted the goalposts by picking up 70.24.247.54's suggestion to split, which would by definition "force" one page to be named as you wanted all along, in the process presenting here only the evidence that furthered your case, and ignoring everything else contradicting it that had been previously identified, and of which you can't have failed to be aware. Shortly after your split proposal (less than a hour), Darkness Shines also objected to the move proposal.
    In summary:
    Supporting move:
    • SlimVirgin
    • 70.24.247.54
    Opposing move:
    • Exok
    • BabbaQ
    • Nick Cooper
    • Rothorpe
    • Darkness Shines
    Supporting split:
    • 70.24.247.54
    • SlimVirgin
    • Rothorpe
    • Captain Screebo
    • Viriditas
    Opposing split:
    • Exok
    • Nick Cooper
    I do not believe this represents the consensus you claim exists, not least because you shifted from move to split too quickly, but apparently only when it was clear that the move was not supported. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You left out a name above. There are five editors who support splitting the article into a murders article and a bio: Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, Captain Screebo, Viriditas, and myself. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're quite right - a genuine oversight while trying to make sense of who supported what across the two pages. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Osmin

    Resolved
     – BLP issues adressed, copyvios removed CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation: Osmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article about an obscure cable TV fitness show seems to have been "written" by transcribing publicity handouts and press release crap. It includes assertions that Osmin was discharged from the Cuban military as insane! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, well incredible that it survived the AfD, out of interest, one of the (Spanish) links used to support the keep is dead and I'm not sure if digitalspy.co.uk can be considered an RS. Anyways, I went and pruned the lead down to something a bit more palatable and wikilike (I hope), adding the refs and removing all the prurient stuff about insanity and masturbation (cause and effect or is it the other way round ;-p). Other editors, give it a look over, cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Wong (singer)

    Resolved
     – BLP vio removed. JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Wong (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is an entry about his sexuality, but I don't know if I shall remove it because... I don't know what to say, except there should be reports that he or anyone else deny these "rumors". --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the section. We don't report sexual orientation rumors, and the sentence about an allusion to him is low quality and unreliably sourced by what appears to be an opinion piece on coming out.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Pollington

    Resolved
     – Unsourced BLP content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Pollington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have just come across an article called Stephen Pollington. As I normally contribute to articles of very long dead people, I am not sure whether this article meets the requirements of WP:BLP. My concern is that the edit history has only two editors who have contributed text to the article and the most recent one of those was with an account that was only used to edit this article and has not been used again.

    So I think it would be a good idea if someone with experience of editing BLP articles, were to look over the text and references and bring it up to the usual BLP standards. -- PBS (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with the article is it reads like a resume - and redundant because the prose has a list of his works, and there is a separate table with a list of his works. Interspersed in the prose is poorly written material that is largely unsourced. I don't like the structure of the article, but at this point all I've done is remove the unsourced material that is more than, for example, just a short description of a book.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the unsourced content and left a note on the talk page, along with a findsources template to facilitate future improvement. Google scholar hits indicate to me the subject probably ekes out notability as a writer and academic, with modest citations that seem relatively strong given his specialized field. In skimming, I've seen at least one instance where he's called an expert. The prose here never really indicated this scholar's importance, and that's something that an interested editor can take on. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Bishop

    Tim Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The Controversies section of the Tim Bishop article is sourced to some very iffy sources, including YouTube videos posted by YouTube anons who make claims that are not backed up by any other sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you removed the material in question? I don't see discussion on the talk page -- I suggest simply removing anything not sourced properly, discuss on talk if it's restored, and then return here if there are still difficulties. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't, it's been going through some rather regular spates of removal and reversals, although to be honest, I was doing some of the reversals. Yeah, I think I'll remove some of the iffier accusations. Not only unreliable sources, but probably no DUE WEIGHT. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed cites to youtube. Third party coverage by reliable sources is required to base the assertions they supported, as well as establish the noteworthiness of the statements in question. In at least one another cite was already there, and the youtube cite wasn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    S. E. Cupp

    S. E. Cupp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Could an uninvolved editor please look at recent edits to this article? Philomab (talk · contribs) has been disputing claims regarding her academic credentials. Kelly hi! 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think your resolution of the issue was fine per the NYT. I did, however, remove the self-published source in "support" of the material, leaving just the NYT. We shouldn't be citing to self-published sources generally, and particularly not for this material, as it's somewhat self-serving and creates a bit of a conflict with the NYT, which is the better and no doubt more accurate source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Help Creating RFC to review WP Guidelines/policy on BLP with respect to material that may harm/malign individuals

    I was not sure where/how to open an rfc on the subject of WP guidelines and policies re material that may injure or defame the subject.

    I've been involved in a lengthy disputed involving these matters. Through that experience I've come to the conclusion that the current WP BLP, RS, and other policies (this issue cuts across a lot of lines) are inadequate to prevent unwarranted harm to subjects through their BLPs. In some cases, things like RS policies may actually abet doing unwarranted and unjustified harm.

    So, I thought it might be useful to open a general RFC on the subject and see what people think/have to say. My goal would be to actually move towards changing policies as needed, if the discussion seemed to indicate that would be good.

    I went to RFC pages to open a new one, but saw they were all divided into unrelated 'subject area' and I saw none related to WP itself or general discussions on WP policy. Perhaps someone here could point me in the right direction? I'm relatively new to WP, and apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. - thank you.

    note - I am not here to argue any specific dispute. Redslider (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course you are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors wondering what this is really about should visit Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Freeman-Wilson

    Concern that most recent series of edits run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:UNDUE. Discussion begun on article talk page [2]. Other opinions appreciated as to whether the edits constitute a BLP violation, and ought to be removed. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibril Wilson

    Resolved
     – Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibril Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The beginning of the page has a reference to Gibril being a baller. Then, in his Miami Dolphins section, the phrasing (ineptness, etc.) is less than unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.214.19 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch. Vandalism and WP:BLP violations reverted. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Darcy Burner

    The biography Darcy Burner seems almost entirely aimed at an otherwise fully non-notable losing candidate for Congress. IIRC, losing in a Congressional race does not make one notable, and this is mainly a "campaign ad". I do not put stuff up for AfD, and think input from others would make sense here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reworked the article some. I removed the assertions about the 2012 election as unsourced, dramatically reduced the Views section, which was self-serving, and supported only by her website, and made a few less dramatic changes. As for notability, as a non-officeholder, the article has to be judged by the usual WP:GNG (see WP:POLITICIAN). My guess is she's received signficant enough press coverage, particularly in Washington, but I haven't looked at all the sources to see the level of he coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor has (nicely) reinserted the 2012 material with a source. He also made a few other improvements to the article. Given her current and past campaigns, she's not going to fail notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

    At the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article, there are two sections that are very problematic: Comments about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and 2012 presidential primary election campaign. Those two incidents are completely unrelated to the 2003 controversial comments that the article is about. They were made in the context of his 2012 presidential campaign, and the sections were moved there. However, several editors insist, without much discussion or attempts to achieve consensus, that the sections must remain at the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article. This is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, specifically WP:COATRACK. The article cannot be turned into a dumping ground for everything Santorum has ever said about homosexuality that gets objected to. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As has been explained to you, the scope of the article is "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality", not "2003 Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality". The controversy is ongoing, and includes his recent comments. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain to me how one can have a rolling, perpetual controversy surrounding them about a specific topic. Can I create an Obama controversy regarding abortion article with his vote against a born alive infants protection bill as the framework, then dump in everything he's said and done that the pro-life lobby objects to? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Santorum is mainly famous outside the US for his views on homosexuality; Obama is famous for being President. Bad comparison. As for the other bits on DADT - well, they give context. They should be rewritten to fit into the article better, but seem ok. BLP is hardly a big issue here: he said the remarks, and he's a well-known public figure who can take the flak.Malick78 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see evidence that Santorum has any significant 'fame' outside the US. As one of the potential Republican candidates for the next presidential election, he's had a certain amount of media attention, and I dare say his views on homosexuality may have been commented on as something to set him apart from the other candidates, but this may well be the result of the difficulty for outsiders in actually distinguishing between the candidates at all. An assertion that Santorum's views are seen as significant anywhere but the US needs evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cite for the "mainly famous" comment? And, by the way, BLP is always a "big issue here." Collect (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't the time to find cites for the "mainly famous" bit, that's just my view as a European. As for the BLP thing - here policy suggests we should be more careful with "People who are relatively unknown", whereas there is no caveat with public figures. Hence, we don't have to worry as much with Santorum - the info is factually correct and seems relevant.Malick78 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Collin Raye

    Resolved
     – BLP material sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Collin Raye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    We had a meet and greet with Mr. Collin Raye last night in Monroe, Michigan. We asked him about his birth date and he laughed. He was born in 1960 and said a fan put together a book that had misiformation, including his birth year. He also said his middle name is Elliot. The idea of calling him Collin came from the music company and had no previous ties to him at all. As a matter of fact, he gave the company a list of names he preferred and they rejected them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachermom97 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for leaving a note. I found some cites to support the changes you made, but keep in mind your account is not a reliable source. If you decide to make changes to living persons' bios in the future, I hope you'll consider running a quick search for reliable sources yourself. You can make a web URL into a reference quickly by adding: <ref>[httq://whatever.html Your Title Here]</ref>. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Igor Witkowski

    Igor Witkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The reason that this person is notable is, as stated in the article, "In The Truth About The Wunderwaffe (2003), originally published in Polish as Prawda o Wunderwaffe (2000), Witkowski claims to have discovered the existence of [a] German secret project ..." The problem is that the only sources given to the article at all come from the subject's own web site and a whois record. I looked at his name quickly thru an indexer, and didn't see any biographical articles, only some references to his publications. I thought perhaps some more experienced eyes than mine should consider what can or should be done with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkotc (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he's actually notable for having been an editor of a magazine and having written many books - though someone should check how many of these have been self-published. Having said that, the article is badly in need of outside, third party source (I'm not that familiar with him, but apparently some of his ideas are a bit kooky, UFOs etc.). Lacking those, I'd favor deletion since it's a BLP.VolunteerMarek 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, look at the related article Die Glocke. Maybe the biography could be merged there. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotations required?

    There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? 86.** IP (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Louise Milligan

    Louise Milligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Nominate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.98.139.3 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A little analysis of why might have been helpful, but I do agree with your, uh, recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Milligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Shea Smith

    Resolved
     – No BLP issue. Referred to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Shea Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    WP:NGRIDIRON Subject does not display level of expertise in field that would warrant an article (i.e. playing in the NFL or a similar level)

    WP:YOURSELF Strongly suspect article was written by subject. Personal information was included that has no bearing on article (i.e. wife is a "renowned baker" and "aspiring lawyer," how nice...) Article content is unduly self serving.

    Recommend for deletion because of insignificant level of importance of subject and because the article has very little substantive information on subject's lasting contributions to chosen field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.117.136 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't where you ask for deletion. You can do that by following the guide at WP:BEFORE. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Kokesh

    Adam Kokesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The bio claims the subject "is Jewish." The linked reference is to a newspaper article on his political candidacy in which the subject claims he is Jewish in response to support from white nationalist website Stormfront which, given that context, makes the claim questionable. Should there be a NPOV source for this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observation Station (talk • contribs) 10:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the source is POV just because there's a discussion about a controversial website in the article. However, I don't think it's clear that Kokesh said he was Jewish - only the newspaper article said so. I've removed the Jewish material from the WP article for a couple of reasons. I removed it from the lead because it's not mentioned in the body (WP:LEAD). If it were to be mentioned in the body, it should be given some context; otherwise, it's a gratuitous reference. I've removed it from the categories per WP:BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I felt the statement looked out of place in the lead but I am still learning Wiki policy so thought I'd ask before taking any action.Observation Station (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Greek affiliation

    A new user, Easimmons, has been adding, to a large number of BLP articles (over 30 today, if my quick estimate is correct), the fact that each article's subject was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity. It appears that the facts are being referenced to what I assume is the fraternity's newsletter, so these aren't unsourced facts. Since the rate of editing was so high, I asked Easimmons to pause for a bit while I checked to see what others thought. My concern is that this information might cross over into WP:UNDUE territory (which, I know is an NPOV issue, but this seemed like a better noticeboard to start). Note that this is not anything specific about the fraternity--merely the fact that information about a college club is being added to such a large number of articles so quickly. Am I overreacting? Or should the information only be included if its somehow relevant to the rest of the person's story? I haven't reverted any of the edits, because it's certainly not harmful, but I figured that it's better to have Easimmons pause to get some input from others. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Florinda Donner

    Resolved
     – Article has been stubbed and is already being expanded based on reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This biographical article relies heavily on apparently self-published material on SustainedAction.org. However, the material being cited is written by Corey Donovan, who does not appear to be an otherwise published expert on the topic and appears to own or co-own the site (all the email addresses for owner, admin and tech in the domain registration appear to belong to Donovan). While the subject has disappeared, she is still presumed living, so the expert exception would not apply anyway.

    I believe this article should be stubbed to whatever can be supported by reliable sources, but would like further input before doing so. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stubbing sounds like a good idea -- something can then be rebuilt from scratch, so that there is normal prose instead of that awful chronology. I don't get the sense that any of it is negative/untrue, but it's certainly a biography that needs improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stubbed it, leaving only the info verified by Salon plus some tiny claims about what her occupation was. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disappearance of April Fabb

    Previous BLPN discussion

    The same editor is back trying to reinsert the material that violates WP:BLPCRIME. His last reversion edit summary says "If this is so bad, why leave-in the other refs to Black?". I believe he is referring to other articles that also violate the same policy.

    First, the material can't remain in the Fabb article because it is a BLP violation against Robert Black (not a wonderful person to defend, but even bad people have rights). Second, violations of the same policy that exist in other articles can be dealt with, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping a BLP violation in an article. Finally, one of the reasons I didn't fight as hard to keep out the Black material in the other articles was because of some confusion about BLP policy/guidelines on this issue. That confusion has since been resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the content should stay out per WP:BLPCRIME. And I think the Disappearance of Genette Tate needs watching also. It's even worse, naming two possible murder suspects without a body, ending in "Police later said that there is not enough evidence to rule out a link..." Sourced, of course. It isn't encyclopedic, and it's against BLP policy as the previous discussion helpfully illustrates. Even reliable sources print things that don't go into BLPs. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the violation from the Tate article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was called here to comment by Bbb23. The view being taken here seems perfect as per policy. If there's any administrative assistance, please feel free to ask and leave a note on my talk. Thanks. Wifione Message 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My position on this issue is stated at User_talk:Ianmacm#Disappearance_of_April_Fabb. All of my edits are made with extreme care in the area of WP:BLP, and there seems to be some misunderstanding about this. The Barnstar that Wifione awarded User:Bbb23 is a particular source of concern, as it appears to suggest that WP:BLPCRIME is an absolute rule when it is not. Anyone who intreprets WP:BLPCRIME as an absolute rule has misread it. The purpose of BLP policy is to prevent defamation, not to whitewash articles by removing material that is WP:WELLKNOWN.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may also be a valid viewpoint surely. I've protected both the articles to prevent more edit warring on the issue. Kindly work out the issue on the talk page of the relevant articles or here, whatever may be comfortable. Once you all have sorted out the issue, do inform me and I'll unprotect the articles. Wifione Message 15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have thought all along that this is a talk page issue (the issue has yet to be raised once there, which is telling). If there was the smallest doubt in my mind that Robert Black's lawyers were going to come galloping over the hills and sue Wikipedia for defamation, this material would have gone. The police know that as with Jennifer Cardy, there are similarities with the 1978 disappearance of Genette Tate. This is in multiple reliable sources.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should re-mention Ian, I did find your argument quite compelling and logical. BLPCRIME is for relatively less known people. In case of WELLKNOWN persons, we should simply document what the sources are mentioning (provided there are multiple sources validating every single point being added). If Robert Black is well known (he seems so to me), then WELLKNOWN rather than BLPCRIME should be followed. Having said that, I'll withdraw from this discussion and leave you all to sort this issue out. Please do inform me when the discussion concludes. Wifione Message 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to state that I agree with Ian that the issues, on both the April Fabb and Genette Tate pages, should have been discussed first on the revelant talk pages - rather than the wholesale deletions of Robert Black entries. In both cases there are multiple references, both quality press, books and TV, to the suspect and they have not been sued!! It seems to me that the logical endgame of these serial deletions would be to remove suspects from all crime pages: ie; what would the D B Cooper page look like without mention of suspects (both alive and deceased)?
    We are not helping anyone researching any of this cases by leaving-out a well known suspect. We are not accusing or libeling anyone by stating they have been suspects.
    I am sure that those interested (with one possible exception) can come to a eventual agreement and stop the continual deletions.
    I thank Template:Wifione for protecting the Fabb and Tate pages and agree that WELLKNOWN should be followed, rather than BLPCRIME.
    With best regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be a consensus reached on a new version for the Tate article (drafted by Ian). As I believe both Ian and David agree (from reading their conversations), the stuff about Black in the Fabb article is more attenuated than the material in the Tate article. So, I have two questions. First, do Ian and David believe the Fabb article can remain without the Black material? Second, if not, does Ian want to take a stab at drafting a new version as he did with the Tate article? I'm not saying that I will approve of the version (that's not meant to be condescending), but he did a very good job with the redraft of the Tate article, so ...--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Fabb case is now so far back (1969) that anything said about it today is speculative and largely of historical interest. The main link to the Tate case is that both cases received huge media coverage in their day, and the police were never able to come up with any firm conclusions as to what had happened, or to find a body. The case of Jennifer Cardy was reopened after credit card receipts and witness statements placed Robert Black in Northern Ireland in August 1981.[4] Similar evidence now exists against Black in the Tate case, but without a body being found or a confession, it looks unlikely that charges will be brought against him. I would not object to pointing out that the Fabb and Tate cases are eerily similar, because they are. Both cases involved 13-year-old girls on bicycles vanishing in country lanes in a baffling way that has never been solved. However, there needs to be more caution in naming suspects in the Fabb case, as the the only real evidence against Robert Black and Peter Tobin comes from theories that were formulated years later with no firm evidence to back them up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, in the main, with all that Ian has written above. I do feel that the "eerily similar" cases of April Fabb and Genette Tate cases should be mentioned in both articles. Over the years evidence has come to light regarding Black and the Tate case, this is not so in the Fabb case - although he still remains a suspect. If we leave Black out of April's page, then there should be some reference to suspects being investigated, rather than the short line stating that investigations are continuing. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tavo Hellmund

    Tavo Hellmund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I do not want to continue an edit war, so i came here. Being fairly new here, please redirect me if i came to the wrong place (and accept my apology for wasting your time)!

    Tavo Hellmund's lawyer and marketing team continue to attack Red McCombs and Bobby Epstein as opposed to focus on what Tavo Hellmund has done. What little he has done is bolstered by press releases Tavo has sent out as opposed to published articles. Spyder_Monkey attempted to clean this up but RacingFan74 is the new entrant adding POV and vandalism to this entry.

    The ClueBot_NG reversed some of the vandalism only to be undone by RacingFan74.

    Please let me know what other avenue (besides an edit war) i have to make sure factual, non-POV nor vandalism is added to Tavo Hellmund's entry. Thank you! (Posted by ScottSanders12)

    Although it's not easy to follow, it's clear that the article has become something other than a biography of Hellmund and more about the current brouhaha between him and others about the construction of a new track. Fixing the article so it doesn't crumble under the weight of the ongoing controversy would take a bit of time, but I don't understand your interest. What do Hellmund's lawyer and marketing team have to do with anything? If you have specific objections to the Wikipedia content, tell us (1) the content that you object to (quoting it would be good) and (2) why it's objectionable. Simplistically put (there are lots of wrinkles I'm omitting), Wikipedia accepts relevant material supported by reliable sources. Any off-Wiki issue you may have is probably not germane.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kip Noll

    Kip Noll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Is this person dead or alive? HWWilson said that he has access to the same-sex porn magazine Stallion to confirm that his real name is Thomas Earl Hagen. The "Thomas Earl Hagen" guy in the Salt Lake City obituary is dead, and HWWilson believes that Thomas guy is the same Kip Noll, a porn actor/model. In other words, Kip is supposedly dead. I couldn't find sources that Kip is dead as "Thomas"; in fact, the obituary did not mention "Kip Noll" or that Thomas is Kip. Nevertheless, HWWilson keeps adding it after I deleted that entry over and over. Also, there were talks about his "death" in the talk page prior. Should this be reported to WP:COIN, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And does Stallion have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? And is there any identification of this person that does not involve original research to synthesize these sources? It doesn't sound like any of this can be used. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to HWWilson, Kip Noll gave out an interview with the Stallion magazine. Still, that doesn't prove that Kip Noll is dead, does it? HWWilson is too insistant, and I can't find a way to convince him about how appropiate that entry is. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still WP:SYNTHESIS at best. Without a reliable source to say what his real name was, there's no synthesizing even reliable sources to indicate the obituary was for this subject. It's entirely believable, and IMHO very likely true, but we need sources; the research can't happen on Wiki. JFHJr (㊟) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If we had a reliable source saying that A=B, and a reliable source saying that A is dead, I think it would scarcely be synthesis to say that B is dead. We might have many other problems here but I don't think it's best framed as a synthesis problem. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is synthesis because no reliable source says A=B; source 1 says A had several siblings, source 2 says B died with the same number of siblings. The synthesis is double: that A=B; and that source 2 describes the porn star (not someone with the same name, assuming the name is correct). The editor in question is not stopping despite several warnings, both template and otherwise. Admin assistance is probably needed. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no one else besides HWWilson has an access to Stallion magazine that confirms may or may not confirm "Kip Noll"="Thomas Earl Hagen"; even so, there could be a lot of people with the same name 'Thomas Eagen' and same amount of siblings. Even when likely, there is no actual proof that Kip Noll died under a different name, and there are no obituaries that mention his work as a porn actor. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to read up on the particulars of this since I am at work, but based on what I read here, this is a clear cut case of OR synthesis. Unless we have an obituary that identifies this specific deceased TEH as KN, then we cannot make this leap. There are millions of people in the world, and any number of them could have the same name and approximate age. I've met myself a couple of times. We simply can't identify dead Utah citizens as porn stars without solid evidence. Can you imagine the headlines? "Distraught family sues Wikipedia over homosexual porn article". Regardless of the particulars of the case, Wikipedia is not the proper forum to make these kinds of links. Perhaps this man is actually KN, but that's for bloggers and historians and journalists to make the case, not Wikipedia editors. 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)~

    Ben Cardin

    Ben Cardin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User Cleanelephant is posting poorly sourced and libelous information to Senator Ben Cardin's page. I removed the edits once, he put them back in and I have just reverted the page back to when I removed them. diff page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsavage (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the material can be legitimately included, but there are too many problems with a negative tone (references to "Obamacare", etc.), too many blogs, too much UNDUE. A serious rewrite is needed before this stuff should be included. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    David Benowitz

    David Benowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The subject is not really a person of public interest, other than having represented Marv Albert in some sex-related charges and appearing on cable news. The article appears self-serving, and appears to be created, written, and edited by only one individual. Other articles have been altered to link to this article, inflating its importance. Basically - the article appears to be basically nothing more than free advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.217.122 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I edited the article for WP:BLP problems. Just FYI, this is not where to nominate for deletion. Nominations for deletion are covered at WP:BEFORE. Having said that, I essentially agree with you regarding notability, and have nominated myself. If you decide to participate or nominate in the future, feel free to register an account. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Marco Rubio

    Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An editor has added a section entitled "Univision controversy". It's a juicy little scandal (drugs, blackmail, and politics) from last year. I don't know if anyone ever tried to add similar material before this (when it was more timely). I'm too tired to decide how much of it, if any, is relevant to the Rubio article and, if it is, how to reword it to avoid WP:UNDUE. It'd be nice to hear what others think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it crosses a line. It is indeed quite juicy -- I suspect we'll get a lot of people trying to keep it in there -- but I don't think it belongs in the main bio. (It might work better in an article on a campaign, i.e., if he were currently running for office.) A key point is that it's not something he did, it's something that was done to him (if at all). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is all surmise and synthesis by an opinion source - and while it might be apropos for Univision, BLPs have standards which it crosses. Or, as I called it on Jimbo's UT page a few times "Silly Season" political editos. Collect (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Gleick

    Peter Gleick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Eyes are needed on the Peter Gleick article. He has admitted that after Heartland Institute documents were sent to him anonymously, he verified them by obtaining copies from Heartland using "someone else's name".[5] Peter Revkin has called this as deception,[6] as unethical, and a Forbes headline even called it theft.[7] But what we have in the article (and on various talk pages) is editors turning that into accusations of fraud.

    Seems like rather a leap to go from deception (unethical, perhaps, but not a crime) to fraud (a criminal offence). Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Pacific Institute, The Heartland Institute. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, we have the NY Times referring to this as deception that leaves the subject's reputation in ruins. We have Forbes referring to it as theft by deception. But we probably shouldn't call it fraud (which is theft by deception) until that exact word is used in a RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even one RS might not be enough, and in any case we would probably need to quote/attribute rather than have Wikipedia calling it a fraud. I see someone on the article talk page seems to be suggesting that the definition of fraud means we can use the word. My reply was that anyone wanting to use it should discuss it here first. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed that the editor in question has been edit-warring over this in several articles - we also need to watch DeSmogBlog - the editor is a WP:SPA with an account created 3 days ago. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoff Thompson (writer)

    Geoff Thompson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have just amended the Geoff Thompson (writer) article as someone had inserted comments saying theat Geoff Thompson was (Redacted). I need to know who made the changes so I can take legal action

    (cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:04, 19 February 2012‎ 81.141.179.62 (talk)‎ (5,592 bytes) (undo)

    Please can you provide me with the information so I can pass it on to our lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address you have pasted above (81.141.179.62) made the changes at those times. Your legal beagles will need to contact the Internet Service Provider or organisation responsible for that IP address. Please do not engage in any further discussion on Wikipedia about legal action, because Wikipedia has a strict policy (as you have been informed on your talk page) that you may not edit Wikipedia while legal action is unresolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I didn't realise that it was against wikipedia rules. surely you must understand that it is frustrating that such damaging comments can be placed on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. I have watchlisted the page so that any further changes of this nature can hopefully be dealt with more promptly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also left a little note at the talk page of the IP address responsible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the edits in question, I suppressed them so they are no longer available to read in the history of the article. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The potentially defamatory material was re-added earlier today, this time by IP address 81.141.179.105
    The re-added material was removed by User:Theroadislong, the new IP address has been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia by User:CIreland, and the article Geoff Thompson (writer) was, at the request of User:Theroadislong, semi-protected for one week by User:AlexiusHoratius. This semi-protection means that whoever is repeatedly re-inserting the material will not be able to edit the article until they have a Wikipedia account with greater tenure and contributions (which is possible but, for that type of editor, fairly unlikely).
    Louis, it also, as an unintended consequence, means you won't be able to edit the article either, for at least a few days. During this time, please make any requests for factual corrections on the Talk/Discussion page of the article, including details of an independent reliable source that supports the change.
    Given the nature of the material being added, I would suggest that the article requires indefinite semi-protection if the problems resume after the one week. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Demiurge: I like the businesslike and calm way in which you handled this situation. Good work! EEng (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Eeng - I must say it's more a case of good teamwork and prompt action taken by several different editors, as I don't have the time nor the tools to handle every aspect of situations like this on my own. It is reassuring that the system Wikipedia has in place seems to handle incidents like this relatively smooothly now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uki Goni

    Resolved
     – Problematic content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uki Goñi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In the other works section, there is a piece poorly added which is libellous grafitti and even if it wasn't, does not adhere to grammatical standards. I'm too unfamiliar with wikipedia to use the diff system for highlighting errors without recopying them but its quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.60.243 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Farhat Hashmi

    Farhat Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'll be very grateful for a neutral set of eyes to look at the Farhat Hashmi article, its recent edits and its talk page. I think that in places this articles strays away from the subject, a person (Farhat Hashmi), and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. The inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of the article. I don't mean its neutrality. That seems ok. I mean its emphasis. Despite the comment of one editor, thing has nothing to do with any "personal like/dislikes". I am merely trying to keep the article tight, focused and sticking only to the person it is about.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    brian solis

    Brian Solis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This page is pure self-serving advertising for a commercial venture. It cheapens Wikipedia and should be removed at once. This content was uploaded by the subject in order to give the impression of importance to his business. Ignore this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsouthwest (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree with you, but we don't delete things at BLPN. Try WP:BEFORE if you want to nominate for deletion. In the meantime, I've addressed the worst BLP problems. It's still not a very good biography, though. I hope more editors will have at it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus D. Wiley

    Marcus D. Wiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Marcus D. Wiley attended and graduated from Willowridge High School. I was his Science instructor. He did not attend Missouri City High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.15 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This agrees with his graduation from Willowridge High School. Dru of Id (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Was Missouri City High School closed, or was it renamed? Dru of Id (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Imre Kertész

    Resolved
     – Requested content added, cited. JFHJr (㊟) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Imre Kertész (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Earlier versions of this page made reference to Kertész having criticized film director Steven Spielberg. The reference may appear on Wikipedia pages devoted to Spielberg.

    The reference is important as Kertész is understood as having made comments that were never libellous, sladerous or defamatory concerning what might be termed "commercialization of the Nazi Holocaust" -- an important point for those who appreciate Kertész´s comments concerning Spielberg (and other directors, producers, and actors) and the subject of the Nazi Holocaust.

    Inclusion of the comment (cross-referenced, cited, and linked) would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.41.88 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I added it. I took a few minutes to look at the previous versions. I didn't find any that matched your description. Have a look at "View history" to find the version you're talking about. At any rate, the page you wanted to edit isn't protected, and you could perform the edit yourself. Next time, you can click "Edit" or "View source" and search for whatever ("Imre") to find the content you want to select, highlight it in edit mode along with the supporting cite, copy, and paste it into the other (Imre Kertész) article, after clicking "Edit" there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Shakthi Scott

    Shakthi Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article is written in such a way to promote the subject and his works. The author has written it in a style of expressing his/her own thoughts. Moreover, the article doesn't seem to connect with anyother article. 59.163.114.169 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was recreated after it was deleted through a formal AfD. Because it was not recently recreated, I've put it up for AfD again. Keep in mind, we don't delete anything at BLPN; next time you see something amiss, try WP:BEFORE. Thank you for posting. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Remy Ong

    Remy Ong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article hit a dog on the road and ran away from the scene. Apparently, this caused an "uproar" in the Southeast Asian nation of Singapore. Are we now in the business of documenting each and every minor incident that happens in an individual's life? The section has also been suggestively labelled "Hit-and-run case", as if he hit a human being and ran away from the scene. Should WP:NPF apply here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was certainly blown out of all proportion, and earlier versions made multiple allegations that were not supported by the sources - I rev deleted a lot of edits. Don't know if it should be omitted altogether, but there was a lot of WP:UNDUE about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the removal by Zeb. I think proportion concerns speak to WP:UNDUE, at least for me. That aside, it's worth addressing here that the incident was covered by multiple sources, which is what this indicates. Note, however, these sources contain inconsistencies among them (for example, search for "pregnant"). Also bearing on the issue may be the Singaporean context of rather stiff penalties for things that pass as minor misdeeds in many other countries. On balance, inclusion of the incident especially as a punishable offense would be WP:UNDUE unless a court conviction is actually secured and its coverage indicates significance. WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here; though no versions that I could see referred to the possible penalties, they did refer to the police investigation, and that's enough for me. I'll concede this individual is quite well known, but I think the conviction requirement there squares well with WP:UNDUE. Later developments will indicate whether this is a minor event or a career ender, but kind of thing doesn't normally belong in an encyclopedic BLP, and there's no practical reason to include the material in the meantime. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Marek Halter

    Marek Halter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am currently reading a book written by Marek Halter in 2010 - The Kabbalist from Prague. The last book listed in his article is written in 2008. How can I contact the editor of his article? I don't want to make changes myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.132.148 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please bring this up at the talk page of the article in question. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer McCreight and BLP1E

    Jennifer McCreight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Editors at Talk:Jennifer McCreight disagree about whether or not the page satisfies WP:BLP1E. It would be very helpful to have advice on this question from uninvolved editors familiar with BLP policy. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Morton Deutsch

    Morton Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Bender235 keeps reverting Morton Deutsch's page to a shortened, incomplete version. Morton Deutsch is a 93 year old accomplished individual who deserves to have a complete entry on wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to stop Bender 235.

    Joe

    (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.59 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Text here, to be complete, should have an inline citation. This is especially so when the content in question is a massive 17,000+ characters of both uncited texts and "references" — it's not clear what statements are supported by what source. Bender235 (talk · contribs) is making the Morton Deutsch article conform with Wikipedia requirements for living persons' biographies. There's no reason to stop anyone. If you'd like to add content, please support each statement with an inline citation or two so that what you're publishing is verifiable. Unless the information is about personal matters or early life, such that only the subject would really have knowledge to write them, a third party source for the information is best. Please see WP:RS about reliable sources and WP:BLPSPS for things you might or shouldn't cite to the subject.
    Finally, I'll point out that you're engaging in an edit war, which will probably get you blocked if you continue. Happy sourcing! JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And wouldn't Morton Deutsch, "a social psychologist and researcher in conflict resolution" be saddened to learn there's a war (even if merely an editorial war) over his Wikipedia article? For shame! EEng (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Joyce

    Eric Joyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I've removed some rather tabloid-esque breaking news about this British member of parliament. This will probably go back in once it's got some stronger sourcing and the details of the alleged incident are clearer; extra eyes on the article would be helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Better sources are appearing quite quickly, BBC News has a very popular article about the incident. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Troy Hartman

    Resolved
     – Unreliable sources removed from citations. JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Troy Hartman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article needs to be analyzed. It has IMDB references, which are totally unreliable. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. WP:BEBOLD and remove them. What do you mean by analyzed? JFHJr (㊟) 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to make sure they are accurate and obey WP:BLP. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, it's usually a safe bet that removing unreliable sources is A-OK. You did just fine. Thanks for catching it! JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rush Limbaugh talk page

    I just deleted a section containing one entry from Talk:Rush_Limbaugh. I deleted the section title also due to its tone. Normally I would leave a note, but that was challenging since the title went, too. I'm not requesting any action, but I wanted you to know in case an explanatory note on the page is necessary. All the best, Overjive (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Heartland Institute

    The Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Toward the end of The Heartland Institute#Global warming, there is a sentence about alleged recipients of the Institute's funding. It's nominally sourced to Scientific American, but careful study of that article shows that what SciAm is really saying is that DeSmogBlog asserts that the leaked documents show that the Institute is funding those individuals. This isn't a clear WP:BLP violation, but it may be a subtle one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's right to say that it's "nominally sourced" to Scientific American -- it is simply sourced to Scientific American. Just report what that reliable source says: here's what is in a leaked document. We don't need to vet the sources used by a source that is itself reliable. Is there any reason to think that the specific claims about the individuals are untrue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the article asserts that another article says something - it it that article which is really being cited. And, a;as, "truth" is not what is used in WP:BLP - any contnetious claims about any living person requires stronger sourcing than a blog and documents whose authenticity has not been shown, and has in fact been questioned. This is the same sort of case as in the "climate cases" in general, where WP:BLP was actually reinforced by the ArbCom decision. Collect (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I vehemently disagree that we need to evaluate the sources being used by sources. Any newspaper engages in reporting, using sources in the more conventional sense, i.e., calling up people and asking them questions. To pick an example almost at random: in the New York Times today [8] an article quotes a Mr Seneca -- it is no business of a Wikipedia editor to consider whether Mr Seneca is a "reliable source", it is entirely sufficient that the New York Times is a reliable source. If other sources cast doubt on what Scientific American is reporting, then of course the article here can be written to reflect that. But it's not up to us to second-guess what is in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is not an absolute. But what is at issue here is to pay careful attention to what Scientific American is saying. If they are saying, in their own voice, something directly about these people, then we judge that statement in terms of the reliability of Scientific American, and we can report it in Wikipeda's voice about those people if we judge Scientific American a reliable source for that assertion. If they are saying that a blog says something about these people, then we can report that a blog says something about these people. Of course, we need to judge whether that is sufficiently weighty to be reported at all. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Óscar Uzcátegui

    Óscar Uzcátegui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I just came across this article while patrolling new Venezuelan articles, and I'm unaware of the latest thinking of how to handle uncited BLPSs. The article was translated from the Romanian version, where it is also uncited. It's a mess. Is it OK to reduce it to a stub? If not, I don't have time to sort through the long translated mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, stub it and list it for deletion (AfD). Fails WP:GNG as there is no English-language coverage of the guy, apart from his biography on the Gnostic bla bla website, to which he is affiliated. Also fails WP:BLP as totally unreffed. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into this for a bit and came to the same conclusion as Captain. Left a note on that talk page and didn't find much from searching reliable sources. Next stop: WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that sources do not have to be in English to qualify for notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very aware. I always do check other languages to the best of my ability. That said, trivial mentions are trivial mentions in any language including Spanish and Portuguese. What I found as to substantial coverage or citation was confined to the subject himself and associates like Samael Aun Weor... JFHJr (㊟) 18:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Cusop, I failed to mention that most of the other stuff (not in English) is youtube videos or gnosticism websites belonging to his mentor Samael Aun Weor. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    John C. McGinley

    John C. McGinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Just read the Bio for actor John McGinley... I found that one of his movies was missing from the list. In the 1993 movie "The Last Outlaw" he played the part of Wills. Mickey Rourke and Dermot Mulroney also stared in the film. 24.0.220.51 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not really an issue for this noticeboard. You can edit the article yourself or comment on the article talk page. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Amy Paulin

    Amy Paulin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The third paragraph was added on 2/22 and is unsourced, biased, and innacurate in clear violation of BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, I'll remove it. Can't speak to its accuracy but it is unsourced and the tone screams POV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dana Loesch

    Dana Loesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a biography of a person who is, shall we say, known for making controversial comments. Naturally there have been disputes over what should make it into the article. In particular, there's been a recent dispute over a comment she made regarding a Virginia bill that would have mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions. The comment is sourced, but the only sources available seem to be partisan blogs and websites (either pro- or anti-Loesch), e.g. [9]. Is this sufficient for inclusion in a BLP? I'm inclined to think so, but other editors disagree. In any case, more neutral eyes on this article would generally be a good idea, because it's one of those that inevitably attracts people trying to push a political agenda from both sides. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If there truly are no sources except partisan political websites, then I would conclude that the incident is not really about Dana Loesch, but rather about the politics involved. In this case, the event is not relevant the biography of an individual, and the inclusion of the event becomes simply a coatrack for pushing politics of one stripe or another. Gnome de plume (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my neophyte status here, but would the actual statement Loesch made be considered a viable source? The statement was reported on by a number of websites - admittedly partisan sites - but then so was her statement regarding Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Afghan fighters, which has also been included in the article. There is actual audio of her statement on youtube. Does that count as a source? Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So the only coverage available is in partisan blogs (which I'm not sure would pass as reliable sources categorically). That might indicate the event or commentary is not very noteworthy, but of low actual and enduring biographical significance. Here, I think inclusion would likely overstate the importance of those comments. That goes equally for the Afghanistan comments apparently not in dispute. If reliable sources indicate significance, the events in question would be more of an encyclopedic BLP and less of a chronicle of comments that got a blip in the blogosphere and brief network hay. Meanwhile, if something is demonstrated to be significant, you can cite the original quote to her blog. Some things are fine from blogs and other unreliable/POV sources, but not most; see WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'll drop the issue. Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=478532441"