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.

Bronwyn Wilson

Resolved

– Resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 04:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronwyn Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bronwyn Wilson has written her own biography

It list's qualifications she doesnt not have. Runs businesses that dont exsist Claims she has a doctorate - no proof of this Professors around the world use her model of learnign she designed. No proof. Has travelled the world doing seminars - No proof.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackseal666 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to approach this, Blackseal666, is to assert unverifiability; not to edit accusations of additional criminal acts — not supported by the source that you cited — and personal commentary into both the article and this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- note that someone not familiar with Wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:BLP would have a potential reason to make the link. One of the few sources about a " Bronwyn Wilson " in New Zealand states "Rongomai Hokianga will teach young people skills while his partner, Bronwyn Wilson". In any place outside of Wikipedia, it is understandable that someone might then link "Bronwyn Wilson" to the the "Bronwyn Hokianga" mentioned in this court reporting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You didn't read what either I or Blackseal666 actually wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes i did read them. I am not stating that we can make the claims in our article, but I am stating that the person who did add them was working in the standard manner of an investigative journalist and should not be expected to know that using such standard research techniques within the realms of Wikipedia is inappropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, the personal commentary included was not standard journalism, but attempting to make connections of people who may not want to have them visible is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There you go. I told you that you hadn't read what either I or Blackseal666 actually wrote. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your post makes me uncomfortable because one has to assume that the person in the source you cite is the same person as described in our article, even though the last names are different. The article has been prodded as it has no sources (the one source it had is dead). I almost think it's a hoax article, at least as far as the Olympics part goes, as I can find nothing to indicate that she ever participated in the 1988 summer Olympics in Seoul. And New Zealand at the 1988 Summer Olympics lists Bronwyn Wilson, but Wilson doesn't show up in any of sources. In addition, that article shows Wilson as a woman, although in its history, Wilson was once listed as a man. Currently, Taekwondo at the 1988 Summer Olympics lists Wilson as a man. I'm tempted to CSD it, but I'll wait to see how the prodding goes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have very good reason to believe that the editor who added that name in the first place had something to copy it from. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I can't find a thing supporting her participation in the Olympics, the rest of the article doesn't exactly scream with credibility, and the history of our other articles is at best confusing. Perhaps someone with more experience in sourcing Olympics athletes could offer a more knowledgeable opinion. One of the troubles I had was trying to figure out how accurate/complete some of the websites are that allow you to search by athlete. I don't know what databases they rely on, and sometimes I wasn't sure if they had a list only of those athletes who earned a medal or all atheletes. I'll wait out the prod. The article has existed for a while, and another week isn't going to matter one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the official NZ Olypic site [1] has a banner that says "Find profiles of every Olypian from the New Zealand Team History" turns up zero hits for Bronwyn and zero hits for a Wilson in taekwondo. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have stubbed the article to content that can be sourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion. There's no indication she meets GNG whatsoever (third party sources?); there's also no indication she passes WP:ATHLETE because demonstration sports are not Olympic competitions within the meaning of the notability guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 02:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Z.D. Smith

Resolved

– On its way. JFHJr (㊟) 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z.D. Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if the subject meets notability guidelines. The subject has some association in the music industry (having participated in a band of a notable subject years before the subject was notable) and the film industry. Could someone please check if my suspicions are valid or not? There is a WP:SPA who has been editing the article and removing my maintenance tags as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see notability. Six references are listed. The first two links are unavailable. Two are Internet Movie Database. I am not sure if this is considered a reliable secondary source but I would think not. Another reference is VGuide. This does not appear to be a fact checked source. I am not sure what the last reference is but it does not look reliable per Wiki policies. I googled ZD Smith but did not find any articles on him. I would think this article could be nominated for deletion.Coaster92 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being listed in IMDB does not establish notability, because IMDB's mission involves listing everything it can get its hands on - every cast member, every crew member, every episode of a 1990s sitcom. In that respect it's more like a directory - we wouldn't assume that somebody is notable just because they're in the phonebook. If IMDB had more substantial comment on a topic, that might help demonstrate notability, but I'm not sure that [2] really helps. bobrayner (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) IMDb is not a reliable source as we define it here. 2) Not everybody in the IMDb is notable; heck, not only am I in there, but so is my daughter, who was a 5-year-old appearing in the "alternative ending" of a documentary film that never made it outside the film-festival circuit. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we are in agreement to nominate this article for deletion?Coaster92 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed the article, which was a blatant copyvio of this WP:BLPSPS and contained supporting cites to a mirror or secondary copyvio of some sort, and to IMDB (the external link section suffices thankyaverymuch). None among those stands up as an encyclopedically reliable source for information on living persons, copyvio aside. I'll watch for further developments. JFHJr (㊟) 06:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated for deletion. Anyone else get the impression this is an interested party? I smelled a fart, so I left a COI note for the main editor. This may need more editors' attention, as BLP content may shift during flight, regardless of whether it ever lands. JFHJr (㊟) 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Russell

Resolved

– Looks stable now. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed on this board here, but I feel it should be revisited. Now, I firmly believe that Russell is notable, as he had numerous sources about him long before Kony 2012 was ever released, so i'm not discussing that right now. However, as can be clearly seen in the Jason Russell article, there is a undue weight issue and a WP:GOSSIP issue. While the article can certainly be expanded with other info about Russell's life, I don't believe it can be expanded to the extent that it offsets the undue weight given to this overhyped scandal reporting issue.

This is also bleeding over into the Invisible Children, Inc. article, outside of this board's purview, but still. It is discussing a large amount of criticism without offsetting them with the positive information that does exist (see Kony 2012 for a good representation of how both sides should be shown). So, what's the first step to take here? Silverseren^C 22:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article and WP:NPOV, imo the detailed coverage of the breakdown might be out of proportion. It would be important to know what is happening with his recovery and if his distress is ongoing. I remember this incident in the news and I don't think it was in the news for long. I would agree that the coverage could be included in one or two sentences under the biography section instead of in a separate section. See if you receive any other feedback from other editors.Coaster92 (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed surplus cites, and worded it to conform with WP:BLP as much as possible. Rumours do not belong here, and what is left is the factual statement of the incident without sensationalising it. Collect (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One editor insists on including the "masturbating" charge -- the guy was not charged with any crimes, and this entire section is pushing UNDUE to the breaking point. Collect (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official statements from the parties are not "rumors", but facts. The police statement actually straight up the popular meme (sparked by the many incorrect media reports and reinforced by South Park) by pointing out that the "perhaps" masturbation call was NOT confirmed by the responding police. All the quotes and references were chosen to represent the official statements and only these with direct quotes. Even the infamous videos of the naked Russel are not mentioned, because they were not mentioned by neither the police (who didn't see him naked, and the quote clearly says he was detained while he had his underwear on) nor IC and Russel family. And regarding "not charged with any crimes", it was me who corrected "arrested" (as reported by media, again) to "detained and hospitalized" (just as the police actually said).

All this was done by us months ago, and we kept shooting down now any sensationalism and vandalism. Now revert your stupid deletions. --Niemti (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And before my "desired addition" stupid quote by some guy on my talk page, it looked like that (in March): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Russell&oldid=483624290 - as you see, the police statement was as misquoted by the media (stuff like "vandalizing cars" and what not). --Niemti (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the good version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Russell&oldid=500045535 (the quoted statement also explains that the reason of detention was for "his own safety"). Followed by two other official statements further explaining the situation (and it's weird that I have to explain THIS). --Niemti (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requires that we edit conservatively, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid where we trumpet "someone said he might have been masturbating!!" in a long section of a biography. The person was not arested or charged with anything at all, and was simply brought to a hospital. Not much of a story to hang half a biography onto. And the same junk was inserted into the charity article as well -- where it has no rational relevance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the contested passage from the article again as it was reinserted while discussion is still ongoing here. Per WP:BLP, the information is not to be restored until the community discusses the concerns and there is consensus reached regarding what, if any, of the contentious statements should remain in the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect. This isn't a tabloid; the text in question has legal implications, and there never was a charge or a suit, let alone a judgment. Inclusion also generally presents undue weight, regardless of sourcing. "Official statements" are just "statements." Even statements in court proceedings are generally not particularly fit for inclusion in encyclopedic biographies — cf. an article about a trial. You could "officially" allege in court, or "officially" tell the police, that the subject is a grapefruit. The removal should stand. JFHJr (㊟) 20:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The police report did not said "someone said he might have been masturbating!!". Stop saying stupid things please. Oh, and it was not "a tabloid story", about everyone reported on it. Everyone. And most of media reported it incorrectly, so ONCE AGAIN, the report (which was there for several months) is only CORRECTING the rumor, not spreading it (it's already extremely widespread, to the point of a popular meme, including being referenced in popular culture). And as of now (after the recent stupid edit), the people who think it's factual that Russsel masturbated WON'T learn from Wikipedia that he didn't and it just "perhaps masturbated" from the callers (according to the actual police statement, which was misreported by most media, but I've used sources with the actual statement that is quite different than that). And they also won't learn that "vandalizing cars" part of the meme was also just mass media being stupid.

And the other part of the stupid edit was the removal of the IC and Russel's wife statements, further explaining the incident.

Oh and nothing in the article indicated anything about "arrested or charged". Extremely to the contrary, it was very, very clearly explained how he was only detained for "his own safety" (a direct quote from the police statement) and hospitalized, and you're just talking stupid again.

As of what else to write about Russel, there's about nothing else that we (me and the others) didn't write already, and he's well known for just 3 things: co-founding and co-directing the IC after making IC the film (have their own articles), directing KONY2012 (also a separate article), and publicily going crazy (literally). Also making a few rather non-notable films (about which we wrote too). And that's all. --Niemti (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please back off - repeatedly calling other editors stupid will likely get you blocked - and posting opinionated comments on this noticeboard about living people will also put you in danger of having your editing privileges removed - he didn't "go crazy" as you assert - he had temporary emotional issues, the is a NPOV BLP position - please stick to such a position in future - Youreallycan 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for there to be such a long paragraph about a single "scandal" event in a BLP. What about all the other IC films and events that he has gotten coverage for? Such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Silverseren^C 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some college news here and here. Silverseren^C 20:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this has some nice info. Silverseren^C 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "calling other editors stupid". I'm calling edit stupid. Which it was. Past IC campaigns have their own articles (I cleaned up all/most them, even as almost nobody is reading them anyway). The only film with an article is the original Invisible Children film, which btw I've cleaned up too. For most people people Russell is this guy who did this video about Kony, and then started pacing in the street naked in these other viral videos, "masturbating and vandalizing cars" as originally reported by most mass media (and I don't mean just tabloid newspapers or TV for idiots like RussiaToday, the story was everywhere, and rather rarely reported correctly). But if you really want you can refuse to KEEP trying to correct this meme, after all the guy's already almost forgotten[3] (and he had over 100,000 views just in a single day on March 16 due to you-know-what, in few more months there will be just no views at all) and I just realized I don't really care anymore too. --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I don't watch this thread too. I just realized that not only I don't care, I also so don't care. --Niemti (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Niemti - "I just realized that not only I don't care, I also so don't care. " - thats great as your desired edit is rejected from the article - and your reverting didn't work for you you appear to have given up on discussion - so lets close this as resolved. - Personally I would immediately investigate you for previous banned accounts, sock-puppets and proxy servers. Youreallycan 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any valid arguments for removal... At the moment it is censuring the facts and it doesn't seem in line with Wiki policy. The information that was there has many reliable sources, intense interest and it corrects many false beliefs going around concerning what happened. The information is correcting the tabloid journalism as well as the mistakes of respected news sources. An example of deceitful censorship is that there are several videos of him nude, but the article only mentions underwear. Leaving out the police statement is not justified from the current arguments either. 180.183.71.103 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one, 180.183.71.103 edit history - the Thailand IP (from Bangkok apparently - looks like a WP:Proxy to me) with four edits, two to this issue and ... two trivia edits - Youreallycan 21:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid sticking to an account or single IP address, as I hate getting bogged down in crap. I just edit what I happen to be reading and let others revert or keep. Now that I've given my two cents for this topic, I'll be going. 180.183.71.103 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LoL - yea - goodbye - Youreallycan 23:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lynn

Resolved

– Stable for now. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the highest opinion of Representative Lynn and would rather have stayed out of this, but it is election season, and no doubt we should expect this and other similar instances to occur. An SPA has flooded this article with some rather blatant POV regarding Lynn's political career. Not only do I not view this as encyclopedic content, but no one is stepping up to the plate with what could be considered encyclopedic content. Lynn was a relative newcomer to Alaska when first elected, and is still somewhat of a mysterious figure here, so that should probably be expected. Anyone from WP:California have any access to relevant information?

One section of the article reads: "Facing a tough reelection battle in 2012." I haven't really paid that much attention to goings-on in Anchorage lately, but my first thought was "how so?" when you consider that Lynn's opponent is the same one he faced in 2010 and defeated by approximately 68 to 32 percent.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all unsourced information since I find the tone and content contentious (see WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP). I've also removed a cite to a user-generated wiki website (see WP:BLPSPS, WP:RS). Finally, I've removed what I identified as editorializing or synthesis of ideas, not contained within any proximately cited reliable source — it's inappropriate in a BLP. It could use more work. If political silly season hits the article hard, I suggest requesting protection. JFHJr (㊟) 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Cornell du Houx

Resolved

– Re-post here as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COIN is passing this onto you guys. User:Paul Cornell du Houx is the father of Alexander Cornell du Houx,[4] the subject of the above article. User:Paul Cornell du Houx has not been editing in violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. I closed the discussion as such.[5] The BLP problem comes in undue weight given to the restraining order issue in the article. Temporary restraining orders are given out by courts rather liberally, and without the court drawing a conclusion on the matter, and sometimes only after hearing from one side. The Maine State Police investigation did not end in any criminal charges being filed and the temporary restraining order expired and no permanent restraining order was issued. In other words, there is no court ruling on the issue. The article is basically written as Alexander Cornell du Houx was born, then there was a restraining order against him, and then others drove him from politics. Since there is no court ruling on the issue, I don't see how the restraining order information belongs in the article, especially given the scant amount of information on the rest of this person's life. Please do what you think best. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would like to add a cited quote from Alexander Cornell du Houx's page to highlight an important fact that may have got confused in the Talk pages: "Before a hearing could take place, and after the Maine State Police ended their investigation,[9] the two reached a settlement; authorities never interviewed Cornell du Houx.[10] [11]" In other words, there is no question of Cornell du Houx being in any way guilty by virtue of the settlement, because the police had already concluded the investigation, and saw no need to interview him. As director of two nonprofits, I am in awe at the volunteer work being done here, at one of my most frequently used an favorite resources. So thank you again. Request: Please resolve this by deleting Alexander Cornell du Houx's page. As a young elected official he has already accomplished a lot and has been a role model of civic and community involvement, but he is still some way from having an encyclopedic profile, depending on your definition of Wikipedia, of course. Paul Cornell du Houx (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. First: the talk page is walls of TLDR; since this discussion was removed first to COIN and then here to BLPN, I'll assume this is the proper forum and leave a link at the talk page.

Second: WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT all need better application. Starting with BLP issues, WP:BLPCRIME generally prefers a judgment over a an accusation; filings, accusations, and other sworn statements are simply claims. WP:WELLKNOWN provides in relevant part "Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: 'John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced.'" WP:RS (and especially in regards to WP:BLP and WP:N) prefers coverage by mainstream, well-known, established, and often national sources; local-only coverage is often disfavored when it comes to showing the noteworthiness or notability of content. Here, however, we have a local politician whose notability is not seriously in question; local sources are to be expected. WP:WEIGHT demands a proportional representation of significance among events that are themselves biographically significant.

As far as I can tell, the post here involves a type of civil filing that because of its nature results automatically in a protective order in every case, as is the situation in most North American jurisdictions. The civil complaint, of course, has very real and harmful criminal implications. The biographical significance, in relation to the subject's career, seems beyond dispute, weighing in favor of some mention. Having said that, all coverage of the scandal is local, rightly reflecting the local nature of the subject's notability, but probably to an inappropriate degree for an encyclopedic biography: it's entirely local aside from perfunctory inclusion in statewide listings. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't obliged to mirror the volume of contemporary news coverage, even if it is non-local (WP:WEIGHT).

On balance — what I think WP:WEIGHT requires — is to write prose along the lines of "du Houx decided not to stand for election amid local controversy over a domestic nature involving fellow representative Erin Herbig." Despite the characterization "high-profile controversy," I am unconvinced it is encyclopedically and biographically so in light of the dearth of non-local coverage. It certainly does not merit roughly one-third of the article prose. JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted. I'm not inclined to edit war, but if anyone has a second or third opinion, that would be great. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Salinas de Gortari

Resolved

– Content cut back, relatively stable version up. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of a living former President of Mexico. He was controversial during his term of office and has remained so since, and his article is filled with unsourced criticism and negative allegations. I'm going to try to clean it up and remove the obvious BLP violations, but I'd appreciate assistance from someone familliar with Mexican politics who can provide reliable sources where required. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one's such a mess it's almost worth stubbing it and starting over... Robofish (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I've just come across the article on his brother, Raúl Salinas de Gortari. That one's even worse. I invite anyone who can read Spanish-language sources to take a look at it and do what they can. Robofish (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a look and I agree with you - stubbing and starting over is a good idea - Youreallycan

Darrell Issa and Sandra Fluke

Resolved

– Looks relatively stable, with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT out. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous partly related BLPN discussion

An editor who pushes Sandra Fluke whenever he can has added material to the Issa page about Fluke and the Issa hearings back in February 2012. This was discussed once before, obliquely here, and directly on the article Talk page. Nonetheless, the same editor is trying again. Naturally, he's stuck the material in the Controversies section (where else?) with an absurdly long subsection header and, putting everything else aside, poorly crafted material. He even has a picture of Fluke with audio reading her statement. I tried to get the editor to keep it out pending consensus (WP:BRD), but that didn't suit him. I've warned him of 3RR (he's performed three "reverts" per 3RR definition), but, even though I technically could, I don't intend to revert a third time. The editor has requested mediation (apparently with me), but unless I change my mind, I don't intend to participate.

Other editors are requested to offer their views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Rep. Issa decision to not allow her to provide congressional tesimony is notable enough to be included in his bio. It is sourced and language is not POV as presented. It only deals with Rep. Issa decision not to allow the testimony from Sandra Fluke. I think this is a case of WP:I just don't like it and have requested mediation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/01_July_2012/Darrell_Issa . Casprings (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COATRACK. Within the context of Issa's BLP, is this of major importance? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

: I would argue that he made a decision not to allow testimony. That in and of itself was a national news ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html ) How is this less notable then any of the other material in the section? Casprings (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listed are national news sources that covered the decision on Fluke. This was a national news event and should have a section under the controvery section of Rep. Issa's page. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]. Casprings (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds if not thousands of people each year are not heard by Congress. This might be of note to the person, but attaching personal weight to a head of a committee is the very ideal image of COATRACK. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email to be heard by Congress. If it is denied may I add a section to the Congress article about it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely ludicrous. The news coverage essentially amounts to "it was criticized by Democrats." We can't possibly add content every time the opposition party criticizes someone. Can we please leave the politics to the politicians? – Lionel ^(talk) 22:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard to judge this by. Wikipedia:Notability There are literally pages of sources from independent news sources if one uses Google. I have provided 5. This event, including Rep. Issa's decision, received enough coverage to be a notable event in his bio. Therefore, it should be included. This is a case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHEM Events have to be judged by objective standards and notability provides that standard. As far as the argument about notability for Issa, many of the same news sources name him has the person who choose not to allow her to testify. Casprings (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are used for the creation and deletion of articles and do not apply to content within an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to a bid by the principle of due weight and other content policies. This was a major sourced event in which Representative Issa held a an all-male panel and denied Fluke the ability to testify on contraception coverage. All viewpoints have to be represented. Casprings (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This google search should provide the information needed for Issa's role and the importance of inclusion.http://www.google.com/search?q=sandra+fluke+issa&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=664&sa=X&ei=Ku7wT63AMuPY2AW6zJSNAg&ved=0CAkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F7%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F28%2F2012&tbm= Casprings (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect had it right. Within the context of an encyclopedic biography of Darrell Issa, and in the grand scheme of things, what weight is due insofar as his part in denying Sandra Fluke's testimony? It doesn't seem inherently relevant, and despite Casprings' assertions, not every fart in congress is noteworthy just because it's congress (cf. notability; see also non-notable content). Issa and his actions do not inherit notability from a controversy that is objectively less notable than himself; the controversy doesn't inherit any notability because it was Issa who said no testimony. There's zero indication of any actual importance of the denial within Issa's biography; it deserves zero weight in the BLP, though it's assumedly worth a mention on Sandra Fluke, whose notability rests on the series of incidents in which the above events constitute one small part. JFHJr (㊟) 01:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree that not everything done in Congress is noteworthy. However, Issa's decision to not include any women on a discussion on contraception was, at least in his bio. It received far more news coverage then any of the other controversies on on his page. It goes beyond Fluke. Casprings (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind this is not the newspaper: content within living subjects' biographies is not at all required to mirror coverage. On the contrary, the weight assigned by prose, on any topic and within any context, should reflect what is biographically significant as to the subject and his overall notability (remember — overall relevance here, versus elsewhere). In general a controversy or event may merit the weight of a mention if, on balance, it is of enduring biographical significance — in this case, in regards to subject's career. That's a high bar, requiring treatment indicating that the controversy or event was so significant in the subject's career. When a controversy or event is not of readily demonstrable enduring significance, the sheer volume of contemporaneous coverage is a spectacularly poor substitute indicator. Please take my point of view with a grain of salt. But please do appreciate that it appears consensus is not in your favor. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree. However, Rep. Issa's all male panel to discuss contraception is one of the key things he is notable for, as least as far as controversies. . A google search of Darrell Issa will find that this, ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/ ) as the first link that comes up. This is a significant event of his chairmanship. If there isn't a section on this, why is there a section on any of the controversies on his page? None received the amount of press from national sources. Casprings (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from presenting arguments that are tantamount to estoppel. Nobody is bound by or has even endorsed previous versions of the article. Just because a section was there at some point — even recently, or for a long time — does not mean it's appropriate. The section is not the subject of this thread; your edits there are. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And no, a top google hit does not indicate any enduring biographical significance. JFHJr (㊟) 05:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally only 50 years and historical research can determine enduring biographical significant. However, at once has to bring some judgement to this or you don't have a wiki page. While subjective measurements might be useful, is there not an objective measurement one can use? In other words, this seems to all be the judgement of a group, despite evidence of news coverage and general public interest. Casprings (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that material on the hearing should be included somewhere, with an accurate account supported be the best sources (e.g. [6]). Issa played a pivotal role in initiating the entire situation with Fluke, with very significant political consequences. (A top google hit would at least be suggestive of biographical significance, but then a google search for Darrell Issa does not currently show anything related to this incident on the whole first page). JFHJr has helpfully linked to the relevant policies but not applied them in detail. I see no language in any policy or guideline against including it - please be more specific if you disagree. Please note that consensus can change - it's a bit preliminary to be declaring what the consensus is or isn't. I also dispute that BLP policy requires an especially high bar for this instance - we're not talking about anything that is going to damage Issa's reputation or something. Hugetim ^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material on the hearing should be included, although the material's nature should be determined by more discussion. We would naturally include this as basic information about Issa's tenure in Congress (specifically, as head of the oversight committee) if it hadn't been criticized; the fact that it was criticized does not suddenly make it unsuitable for inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has had an active tenure as chairman. Perhaps a run down of his time as chairman? Casprings (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Issa did not "deny" or censor. Fluke was not submitted as a witness, and the agenda was set on the Monday before the hearing, when nobody had heard of Fluke. Issa did not alter Committee rules to allow a last minute un-vetted addition. That is not the same thing. The only semi-notable part of this whole charade was the House Democrat's decision to stage a protest instead of participating in a Hearing, which got press but made little substantive impact. They could have used Fluke or generic female #3 wandering by the Capital building. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sieveking

Resolved

– Reliable sources required. JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Paul and we were good friends in the 60s and 70s. Your entry in Wikipedia says that he read Anthropology at Jesus College Cambridge but so far as I recall he was reading Archaeology and Anthropology, a classic combination (Arch and Anth). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.161.110 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That material is sourced to a book, so I can't check its accuracy. Unless you have a copy of the book and believe the book does not say what our article says, or unless you have some other reliable source disputing it, it has to remain. Unfortunately, your recollection is not verifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both of you are right. All undergraduate admissions to Cambridge are to Archaeology and Anthropology; there is no separate Anthropology tripos. The eventual degree is a BA in Archaeology and Anthropology. However, it is only in the first year students study both subjects. In the second and third years, undergraduate students select one of Archaeology, Biological Anthropology or Social Anthropology, to specialise in. See Department of Archaeology and Anthropology website for details. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, was that the case 50 years ago? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenson Button

Resolved

– Add BLP content if and only if you have a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenson Button was named, being a fan of motorsport, by his Mother, Simone' after seeing a Jensen whilst pregnant. She changed the 'e' to an 'o' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.249.43 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, assuming you have a reliable source that says that, please follow these instructions:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

Resolved

– Protected. Most content seems reasonably sourced. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced elaboration back on this page, which had a somewhat trivial comment about the subject teaching a one-time course at the Learning Annex. The actual notation should probably be removed entirely anyway, since she is not a teacher by profession and is notable mainly for her modeling as well as writing metaphysical books.

I also added information from reliable links that reported her guardianship case and marital history, but those facts were removed as well. Can someone please take a look at my edits and place some, most, or all of it back? I did thorough research about this woman and all of my information was properly sourced. Thanks! Fiiinally (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of her writing of "metaphysical books" (whose content is I think unrelated to metaphysics as normally understood) is not obviously clear. The one-time course at the Learning Annex indeed seems minor, but it's unusual in that it's sourced to an article in which the event is written up with illuminating detail. (The "elaboration" appears to be something that Adams said about the subject of the course after the event, not during it.) ¶ Actually very little in the article seems to rise beyond trivia: for example, a section with the promising title LGBT activism says that Adams was a visible presence in the LGBT community and founded the online lesbian community Sapphica.com, which was active from 2003 until 2009, but two of the four sources adduced for this claim are sapphica.com itself, one is a press release, and the fourth is this article, which says nothing about the visibility of her presence other than a mention of sapphica.com. ¶ Fiiinally's objection is paralleled by strenuous objections by this IP and perhaps others to any mention of the Learning Annex course, while increasing Adams's salience by adding her name to the list of "Notable Alumni" of Fairleigh Dickinson University (as if Category:Fairleigh Dickinson University alumni weren't sufficient). Certainly the goings-on in this article (recreated after this AfD) are odd, but they merit more than a quick look. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the Fairleigh Dickinson info which was created in her original wiki article (http://web.archive.org/web/20080529113926/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams) as well as recently by Delicious carbuncle. I'm not sure why it was suddenly deleted, but this article should not require so many sources, as some other articles do not have sources referenced at all. Fiiinally (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your logic, and I'm unsure of which of three or so things you mean by "it" in "it was suddenly deleted". As for the unfortunate fact that other articles cite no sources, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no unfortunate fact here. Her being a Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate was stated in her Playboy pictorial and in various articles written about her. I also see that it was properly sourced 3 times in the article recently. It was written much about in the past, but someone seemed to have removed it for some odd reason with no justification. You and fasttimes68 worked hand in hand with edits in the article about her wayback in the past, only recently showing some static over minor issues. What's your real problem here? 98.14.172.209 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Paterno and e-mail

Resolved

– Article stable. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the position that Paterno is subject to WP:BDP. So far, no one involved disputes that, and one editor explicitly agrees.

The issue is whether we should include this:

However, emails from 2001, revealed after Paterno's death hint that he had a direct role in the decision to cover up Sandusky's behavior. According to these emails, Penn State officials Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on a plan that would involve telling state officials about Sandusky, but that after Curley discussed the matter with Paterno he backed away from this plan. ([7]; [8])

As far as I know, the actual e-mails have not been disclosed in the sources. There are no e-mails from Paterno, so it is all based on interpretations of e-mail from others. I don't believe the material should be included. Another editor appears to agree. A third editor disagrees and has reinstated the material, even though arguably there are BLP issues and there certainly has been no consensus to include the material. By the way, the material I reverted was far worse than what the third editor put back in (he definitely improved the wording). The third editor believes it should be included because it is reliably sourced and because, otherwise, the article would not be neutral as "we have only this implausible 'he didn't know, he was just a feeble old man' whitewash", a comment I found inappropriate and said so. I have also suggested that the material favorable to Paterno on this issue (it precedes the e-mail material), which comes from an opinion piece, should also be removed as I don't see why a journalist's opinion as to Paterno's behavior is noteworthy (or neutral).

More eyes would be helpful. I have commented on the Talk page, but I have not reverted the third editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Interpretations" make for bad biographies of anyone. Collect (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of the original revert. So, yes, what's on there now about the e-mails is better than what was on there before. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper

Resolved

– Looks stable. Re-post, and request protection or oversight if necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper is currently in the news. We have a picture of his house in Greenwich Village in his biography. The article also mentions two other properties, with stalker-friendly references. I removed this information once, but got reverted. I think it's not our job to make it easier for stalkers to locate a notable person. Opinions? Draco^E 18:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the other editor who wants to add the material put it back but in a less privacy-invading way (I haven't looked closely at the history). I reverted anyway. It's trivia and doesn't belong in the article. This idea of listing a subject's properties and locations is pretty silly. It's done in other articles, and it's always silly/trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Bbb23. My thoughts exactly. Draco^E 08:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Vallejo

Resolved

– Some WP:WEIGHT issues remain, but the talk page is the best place to discuss. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a "Recognition & Criticism" section, once pretty serious and sourced criticism was inserted, that whole section was deleted 1) The existence of a contract for 30 million Chilean pesos, that lended the FECh name to some courses, and whose funds management -made by Camila Vallejo and one treasurer- wasn't clear, according to one of the FECh's board members. 2) The criticism about her declarations on "armed struggle" to "El País", even if they were decontextualized, it still caused controversy. 3) The criticism about her declarations on Fidel Castro.

Even if the quotes were decontextualized (in my opinion, the second one was, by right-wing chilean media), the wikipedia article had the whole quote that caused the stir. Those events: the quotes, the contract, happened and they drew criticism. Why not have them in the article? — comment added by Manuel linzen (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you seem to have added the section to the article - and are a WP:SPA in relation to this subject - Special:Contributions/Manuel_linzen - Camila_Vallejo#Criticism - on first look it seems unduly attacking and has NPOV issue and imo as a minimum needs a trim/rewrite - Youreallycan 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hosking

Can an editor look at resolving the split in the article as it currently looks like a wp:coatrack for a subject covered in the related article (on RedBubble). The editors have done a great job but the article has been sitting now for a couple of months without resolution. Also it would be great if the talk space could be cleared up as it contains poorly/unsourced accusations not compliant with wp:blp. Many thanks and good wishes XcommR (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I archived what I could - to three months historic - I would like to archive some of the attacking discussion but it will likely be replaced - there is a lot of desire to attack this subject imo - and sadly its been going on for a long time now - WP:SPA like this one Special:Contributions/Muwt5 - active for a month now only on this one BLP should imo be WP:BLPBAN ed from the article - Youreallycan 06:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:XcommR is in fact Martin Hosking -- and so the language of the opening post of this section is to be considered in the context of WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should not assert that without evidence - do you have evidence ? _ Youreallycan 07:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't bothered to read the article talk page, I take it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence link to it here/provide the diff or retract your allegation - Youreallycan 07:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wp:COI is because I am the subject of this wp:BLP and so can also be considered authoritative on the dates. XcommR (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ant - so there has been no otrs verification? The most we should assert in such situations is, the account has claimed to be (whoever/the subject of the article) although this is unverified. - we should remember to make it clear to readers of discussions, as anyone can create an account here and claim to be whoever they want.Youreallycan 13:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long history on this article of involvement by Hoskings and by his representatives, some of it up front, some of it a little less so, some of it more cordial, and some of it a little less so, but the article has had a tortured history, in part because of that involvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity. The wp:COI is declared front and center on my profile. I am not sure if there is a WP policy which says I need to identify why the COI exists but feel free to link me to this policy. Also not sure I need to quote the COI on every post I make given it is the first thing you see on my profile and I am not editing but requesting edits. Please link through to any appropriate policies and I will adjust my approach XcommR (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RedBubble is now an article - and the extensive coverage in the BLP is now improper. Meanwhile, the ad that was that article has also been depuffed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD: [9] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Williams (game designer)

A relative at the help desk says he is still alive. It seems there is a junior and a senior. There are no sources at all for birth or death dates. I haven't removed any dates yet, I thought I would bring it up here first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the article of some unsourced things that could be contentious and left a note on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note at the talk page with some links. They didn't work for me, but maybe they'll inspire someone else to look harder. It's bothersome not knowing if the subject is dead or alive. By the way, why did you remove the image from the infobox? It seemed to be accurate and fair use compliant. Do you doubt its authenticity? JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relative on the talk page pasted a link to a picture of someone in their 50's. I think there may be two with the same name. I haven't looked at the talk page yet since you edited it. I think I remember leaving some links there as well. I may have even sent an email to one of the 'bloggish' sources that I left in the article for reference. I will see if I can find the link to the other image and paste it here. The article seems fine without an image for now, until we get RS on who is who we may best best off leaving any images out. Any thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Williams.png is the image she uploaded. Her contribs will link you to her talk page and the help desk post she made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_July_2#Bill_Williams_-game_designer_-_for_Alley_Cat_video_game--_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FBill_Williams_.28game_designer.29 --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no pictures of Bill Williams,” says Romero, and try as I might, I can’t prove the man wrong. Best known for his Atari computer games, including Alley Kat, Salmon Run, and Necromancer (pictured), Williams’ work was lauded for its skill and artistry." from

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/02/john-romero-bows-before-gamings-masters/--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Delaney (football administrator)

Resolved

– So far so good. Re-post if activity picks up. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Delaney (football administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This biography of an Irish football administrator was filled with unsourced negative allegations. I've stubbed it and reduced it back to the sentences which were properly sourced, but he seems to be a controversial figure who's attracted a lot of attention recently, so some more eyes on this one would be helpful. Robofish (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good... JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney

Resolved

– The event is at this point WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:BLPCRIME is inapposite. Discussion ensues at Talk:Mitt Romney. JFHJr (㊟) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a claim is a violation of WP:BLP as curently worded does it cease to be a violation if it had lasted 2 years? Would it cease to be a violation if it is in a "note" and not in the text of the article? And where an "arrest" was not only dismissed, but the record officially sealed, is the fact the person is "notable" thus make the addition of the "arrest" to their BLP encyclopedic? And if the "arrest" was over what most would agree is a trivial matter, is the "arrest" still valid as a claim in an encyclopedia article? I would note some view WP:BLPCRIME as only usable for "non-notable" people - but since every BLP is about a "notable" person, does that mean BLPCRIME is actually meaningless? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney's arrests are widely reported. If BLPCRIME prevents us from presenting facts that were widely reported, it is not in sync with practice, and needs to be revised. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also misrepresent BLPCRIME, saying using "non-notable" in quotes. The quote from BLPCRIME is "people who are relatively unknown." Were you being intentionally deceptive, or merely making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some weird reeason I consider people who are unknown tend to be not notable. Your mileage appears to vary - but how many unknown people have BLPs at that point? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME is intended to apply not just to the subject of biographical articles (which would, as you say, be a notable - and likely known - person) but to any living person in our articles. For instance: John Smith might be notable and have an article about him. John's wife (Sue) may not be notable, but someone may wish to add a sourced entry that Sue is accused of mail fraud. BLPCRIME basically says that we should seriously consider NOT including that accusation, especially without a conviction. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:WELLKNOWN, which is actually more applicable. BLPCRIME is, as Collect indicates, something particularly formulated to help relatively unknown figures. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J Keith Moyer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Keith Moyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have reason to believe the creator of this article is using it for self-promotion and has taken it directly from his own resume. I do not believe the person is notable enough to have their own entry. There are no citations used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snitkers (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article in its original stub form hasn't edited since 2007. (As to the article reading as if it were "directly from his own resume", if a link backing-up that assertion had been provided that would have been helpful.) I have tagged the article as a Biography of a living person needing additional sources. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw zero notability, so I nominated for deletion. Link above. JFHJr (㊟) 01:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I demur per multiple quotes in books on journalism, and multiple mentions in NYT. Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Peña Nieto

Resolved

– Resolved for now. WP:RPP or re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Peña Nieto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
President of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Enrique Peña Nieto labels him as the "President-elect" of Mexico, which is not true at the moment. Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) is making a pro-Peña propaganda throughout Wikipedia, adding "bloody" hidden notes through many articles [10], [11], [12], etc., and inexplicabily removing Alejandro Poiré and Juan N. Silva Meza with this edit, when in fact Peña Nieto, as a President-elect, has no legal figure and is not a leader, but Poiré and Silva still being political figures until 1 December 2012. The Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) has not named him "President-elect", and no local media is doing so. Multiple people is believing that I am an idiot because he is the virtual winner and this is simple statistics, but in fact Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced that once the official results are given, he will challenge them [13]. Also, at es.wiki, there is a consensus to still labelling him as candidate until the IFE announces him as the winner of the Mexican general election, 2012.[14]. Could somebody check this, and if possible notify (because they won't listen to me) Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) and Maunus (talk · contribs) that this borderlines the WP:BLP policy, WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly Mexican electoral laws. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in terms of BLP content; we have to wait until the event happens before it can be stated as fact. But as of right now, President of Mexico, Mexico, and Enrique Peña Nieto all appropriately refer to Mr. Peña Nieto as the presumed president-elect. Some articles simply need more watching and attention; these are some. If these cases become edit wars, I think WP:RPP might be a better place to get preventive help, although the edit counts of those involved tell me full protection would be the only real remedy. It's not quite a battleground at this point, thankfully. JFHJr (㊟) 00:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Fekula

Resolved

– Unsourced content removed. This article is on its way. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Fekula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

[Not a banker, nor a person, of much, if any, note, or notability, in the City and the State of New York, in the United States of America ([15]; [16]). Extensive COI-editing, either by himself, via and through unconfirmed, but similar IP addresses and numbers, or by his personal friend, a certain Mister John Derbyshire, through and via his suspected account and and his also suspected personal IP address and number. The article was created by an unregistered user with an IP address and number, and further edits, almost certainly by his same person, were made with other IP addresses and numbers within the same, or of a similar, range, from the United States.] Is the article for one Mister Vladimir Fekula an autobiography? I think that it is. -- KC9TV 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a question for WP:COIN. They won't disclose information about IPs and ranges, but they'll consider it. On the other hand, this is where content and edits on BLPs are talked about. Having said that, the article you've linked is a steaming turd of a WP:BLP. I'm removing some clear violations: unsupported self-serving claims involving third parties (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:RS). JFHJr (㊟) 01:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Canseco

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Canseco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm a little concerned with her daughter being referred to as "halfbreed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.114.14.38 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here was a single person, 71.229.238.234 (talk · contribs), who vandalized Wikipedia for three hours. Uncle G (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Ron

Resolved

– Reverted to a decent version. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Wikipedia editor, nor am I familiar with the policies. However, there's an article I'd like to refer to those who are and are properly able to change/remove it. The article about rapper/artist Ron Ron seems terribly written and biased. Just read it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.8.238 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Unsourced, unencyclopaedic waffle. And given that it makes multiple unsourced claims regarding criminal activity, I've blanked the lot. How the hell this survived for so long, I've no idea... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It didn't. Go and read this revision from November of last year, which seems a fairly good point to revert to given that it has more sources than the current almost sourceless stub. Also read Koch 2009 from those sources. Uncle G (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's email address in BLP

Resolved

– Best to link websites for contact info; not e-mails. JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed my local MP's constituency office on another matter, but also asked if they'd like to have his email address in his article and they said they would. Do we do that? I can't find an email parameter in his infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not a great idea. It's sufficient that we link to their websites, which will enable people to contact them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I added his parliament webpage, which has his email address. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Shipman

Resolved

– Auto-author forewarned on user talk page. Re-post if actually created. JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisshipman (talk · contribs)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dennis Shipman · Dennis Shipman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not so much an existing article. Also not sure whether to chalk this up to vandalism or cluelessness. The appearance is that Mr. Shipman wrote his own Wikipedia article, and appended it to Template:Anthropologist-stub (which I've since reverted), which in turn appended it to the bottom of every article which transcludes that template. Like I said, I'm not so sure what to make of this, but felt that someone may wish to help the fellow out, if necessary.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheh Hallegua

Resolved

– No glaring WP:BLP issues. For notability or deletion questions, see WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

person is not important enough to have a wikipedia page. material is potentially defamatory. page seems to have been written to potentially embarrass and/or coerce the person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediauser4 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything "defamatory". The article is odd and needed some clean-up. As for notability, there seems to be several sources that discuss her situation, so I'm not sure why she doesn't merit an article, but I haven't read the books, so can't access the depth of coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

simon williams actor

Resolved

– Article looks adequately sourced for the most part now. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Williams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cumnor House School

This will need finally verifying but I'm 99% sure that the 'Cumnor House School' Simon attended was the Prep school that comes up when 'Cumnor House Dane Hill' is browsed, i.e. not the one in Croydon.

I lived within 2 miles of that school and my sister was friends with Simon's sister, Polly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camapanic (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That two sentence section has no sources at all. I will just remove it until we find out which school he went to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an overreaction. Source #2 already cited in the article directly supported part of the content that you just blanked for being "unsourced". Having no sources isn't the same as having no little superscripted numbers, remember. Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Cautious may have been a better term. It is safer to remove material than leave it in after a reasonable request to source it. I can't see why Camapanic's mention was unreasonable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camapanic didn't challenge, or even mention, Harrow School. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More caution all around. FWIW, anything can be challenged. We aren't restricted to what the OP has stated. Moot now, I suppose. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Penny

Resolved

– No glaring WP:BLP problems in Laurie Penny. JFHJr (㊟) 00:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed {{Autobiography|date=July 2012}}{{COI|date=July 2012}}{{Like-resume}}{{Advert|article}} on Laurie Penny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.56.231 (talk • contribs) 2012-07-04 13:39:45 (UTC)

Owen Jones reads like a resume

Resolved

– No article specified; re-post as needed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Owen Jones? There are several of them. bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are living except Owen Bennett-Jones, which doesn't present any massive problems. I'm marking this resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 23:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

Resolved

– Looks reasonably worded and stable for now. Re-post as necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP seems to me to have been put together by critiques of McIntosh in a delibirate attempt to damage his reputation because of his personal held views about origins science. Rather than researching into his respectable contributions to science e.g. why is he recognised as a prof? the writers have focused their research and the article on this theme.

Consider the article as it is currently written:

We begin the article by emphasising that he disagrees with biological evolution. We seek to create a bad impression in the readers mind through using the word "general consensus". (these words might be appropriate for an article on evolution but not a BLP).
We then seek to damage his reputation further by declaring that he belongs to truth society and that his university has distanced itself from it.

(note this is just the first section the reader sees) and the majority of the article continues to destory him in this manner.

The only positive thing we have to say about him is that his group developed a new technology known as µMist. We like to emphasise that he is a director of this "truth society" but we don't like to say that he heads the research group who discovered the beetle (which we are told in the referenced article describing this).

I note that an attempt was made to neutralise the article on the 6th January, however this is immediatly removed despite it having a reference to a peer reviewed journal article. A discussion takes place on the articles talk page but it is argued out using bullying tactics.

WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is written with quite a neutral tone, particularly given the nature of his research. You seem to think that discussing this aspect of his work is "negative" -- but if he is in fact a "young-earth creationist", then surely he won't mind being portrayed as such. In describing this portrayal as negative, you seem to be working from your own feelings on the matter rather than his. I really don't see a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article clearly was written as a WP:COATRACK by someone interested in exposing him as a member of a particular group rather than in writing a biography describing why he is notable. It was evident even from the syntaxt such as "McIntosh promotes creationism and intelligent design as put forward by the organisation Truth in Science of which he is a director." - what is notable here is surely that he is director of an organization, only secondarily that that organization promotes a specific theory. Similarly the oblique "which is rejected by science" tag sentences really doesn't improve the article's neutrality but only makes it come across as clumsily bigoted. I hope my revisions are acceptable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My approbation of its condition came after your edits, so yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The page has since been changed worded much better since I brought the issue up here thanks to Maunus. You can see the page at the time of writing these comments here. WikiJonathanpeter (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Gladys

I am wondering if something can be done with this article. It seems to have been worked on at various time by these three editors who may or may not be the same person.

Werk ltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Atlasvishnu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Julesgladys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The two "interviews" provided as sources use the name Julia Toebben which seems to have been a name that this person went by at some point in their life. As you can see no explanation of the name changes is included in the article. I came across it when it was being used to support an article for this film Hara-Kiri (2012 film) which went through AFD. The article mostly reads like a resume so I am wondering if a) it meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines b) if not can it be improved so that it does meet them and c) if it can't should we send it to AFD.

Your input and anything that you can do to improve the article will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a notice for all three editors but as none of them seems to be active I do not know if we will hear from them. MarnetteD | Talk 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "Interview" is the name of the subject's movie. There's no interview to find. Good point about the name, though. Currently, I don't see any actual notability; "Hara-Kiri" is a pretty good touchstone, since it and "Interview" seem to be the biggest claims. There are a few other claims, such as an award, and generally being known in Europe or something close, but they are not supported by the apparent citations. Most importantly, the website currently used as a citation is not a third-party source: Herr Matthias von Birkensee is associated with the website and also produced the subject's "best known" film. It reeks of WP:COI; I wouldn't be shocked to discover both the subject and the producer had a hand in promoting her. And I'm removing the cites to their website. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reach COI - it has a lot of puff in it, and some extravagant claims. Collect (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Hoilett

Resolved

– Protected. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srates better not be playing for newcastle united.. previous claim. Now plays for newcastle united all false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.138.161 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while just to figure out who you were talking about. I've added the template. Someone else may want to decipher what your complaint is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Gleeson (Early Life section)

Resolved

– Vandalism removed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section in Irish actor Brendan Gleeson's wikipedia page that pertains to his early life has been completely overhauled to include simply preposterous facts that never pertained to him or any other actor for that matter, he never kept sparrows in his hair or mined on jupiter which according to the present article, he did. I ask that this article be restored to its original truthful state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.32.235 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report - I have removed the vandalism (sadly it was published to the world using en wikipedia for nineteen hours) you should also feel free to be bold and have removed it yourself - which would have saved it being there for a further four hours - seems like no one is watching the article, or this noticeboard sometimes. - pending protection would have stopped it being published even for a single minute - Youreallycan 06:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Adler

Resolved

– De-cluttered. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is almost autobiographic. What is the point of this article? --Geochron (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the references are obviously made by friends of the subject. Is there a rule against this? --Geochron (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a bit of trivia with no refs meeting WP:RS (yes there is a rule along those lines). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also some PUFF. Collect (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Richie

Resolved

– Unencyclopedic trivia collections should stay out of encyclopedic BLPs. Talk pages are a first step in dispute resolution. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please protect the article for a while, as a serial pest is back again. Thanks. GFHandel ♬ 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for Richie's middle name? bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which serial pest is that: the person with an account who largely blanked an "in popular culture" section full of "ridiculous trivia", at which you didn't bat an eyelid, or the person without an account who has told you one … two … three … four times that xe is removing a "unimportant"/"trivial" "in popular culture" section, against whom you've been edit warring, and whom you've been calling a vandal? You all have a marked double standard in how you treat people with and without accounts. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section should stay out. It is not of encyclopedic value. I'm pleased to see it's remained out. I'll also note the OP, opponent the removal, has not so much as commented on the article talk page or on the IP's talk page. These are steps I'd take before re-posting. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career of Barack Obama

Some more opinions would be welcomed here: Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#CIA_Reference_Justification. An admin from the ancient days of Wikipedia seems to have trouble grasping our new policies (IMO). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict.

I am concerned by this section of the article.

False tweet by UN employee

In March 2012, UN official Khulood Badawi, an Information and Media Coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, tweeted a picture of a Palestinian child covered in blood and falsely claimed that she had been killed in an IDF strike. She captioned the picture with "Another child killed by #Israel... Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.”

The criticism of Khuloud relates to the claim that she 'falsely' claimed that the child was killed by the IDF. As per the article some sources state that the child died in an acident, others that the accident occured during, and was therefore as a result of, an airstrike. Without getting involved in too many details, I would like the section titlle to be Alleged false tweet, and the word falsely removed from the first sentence. I would then publicise this on the article talk page, and remove the material that I believe contravens BLP policy. We should not allow this claim of falsehood to remain. Thank you for looking at this. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed for this section support this description: 1,2, 3,4 and the UN Under-Secretary General Amos acknowledged that "It is regrettable that an OCHA staff member has posted information on her personal Twitter profile, which is both false and which reflects on issues that are related to her work". According to the sources, Khuloud claimed the child died recently in an airstrike when the child had died five years ago in an accident. Thus she misrepresented the cause of death and its timing. Ankh.Morpork 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These say that the child died as a result of an IDF airstrike. The fact that it may be classed as indirect is not in dispute.

'Maan News said that the cause of death registered in a hospital medical report, from that day in 2006 stated that Raja died 'due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza' and said that the Gaza prosecutor registered her as a martyr, a term commonly used to describe Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Raja's father Salam Abu Shaban stated that, 'Israeli rockets fell near the house, causing the playground slide to fall on top of her,' stating that the strike occurred less than 200 meters away. Her mother agreed. In a register of Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli forces, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports that Raja 'fell off a swing and bumped her head when a missile fired by the IDF hit an orchard 100 meters from the house.' Recent investigations have re-confirmed this account, B'Tselem official Sarit Michaeli stated.[117]' Therefore it is incorrect to state that the claim of the circumstances of the child's death was false when there are different versions of the event. The actual tweet does not support the claim that Khuloud stated that the death had occured the previous night. The tweet does not mention a date or time. Baroness Amos did not state what, in her opinion, the false claim related to. It is entirely possible that nothing in the tweet is false, and in this case the statement that is definitely false should be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the falsehood of her statement is subject to dispute, we can't just report that she made a false statement. But we can quote a source who describes her as making a false statement. If you have another source which claims that the statement is true, you can add a reference to that as well. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, i agree with you, we can not use the word false or falsely without saying who makes that claim.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arvind swamy

There is incorrect information being repeatedly posted on this page and I request that any changes be verified as and when possible. I am the subject of this page and this deals with details of my birthplace, parents, Filmography etc. which I do not want misrepresented. --Arvindswami (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please present reliable sources for corrections, and do not remove other sources unless you have more sources countering them. Even if you are Arvind Swamy, you are not a source for the article. Anyone could claim to be Arvind Swamy on this site, and verifiability is the standard here, not "truth." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can do is put the corrections on your twitter account, then we can cite that tweet. This is good for non-controversial personal facts - stuff like age, place of birth etc. (though we are sometimes surprised at what people lie about). For something like "Arvind is the greatest actor ever" we would want want a source independent of you :). Once you have tweeted you can drop a note here. I hope this helps. filceolaire (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gwyn

This article doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC, as well as not fulfilling other criteria.

One, the guy is associate professor, not full, and not distinguished. Doesn't have any awards or chair to set him apart and establish notability. Willing to hear other perspectives on this but seems like he doesn't fit WP:BOL.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the short article a bit and added a source. It's suspicious that the article was created by the subject and heavily edited by the subject subsequently. I don't think the subject can establish notability as a professor, but it's not as clear whether he can as a writer. You're welcome, of course, to do some research and to nominate him for deletion if you believe he fails notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems to violate WP:COI, but bigger question is notability, of which I don't see it meeting. I placed a tag and will wait to see what other's see.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around and found a few articles mentioning Gwyn. I am interested to know what other editors think about these in relation to his notability. One source is the publication of his short story "The Gray" in Esquire. There is a short introduction to the story with the comment that it is the "best bar fight story." Another is a New York Times article from 6-20-12 that mentions Gwyn as one of the authors who will be part of the Esquire ebook devoted to men's fiction. Also one of Gwyn's stories is published in the Gettysburg Review, a literary journal published by Gettysburg College. A review of Gwyn's book "The World Beneath" is published in the Bomblog. Creative Loafing Charlotte published a review of The World Beneath as well. IMO there is blossoming notability. His article is nominated for deletion. I would like to hear input from others on these sources before I comment there.Coaster92 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ocean

Thank you for drawing my attention to an account that has done nothing but vanadalize, including even more egregious vandalism than this, and violate copyright for the past six and two thirds years. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the overall description of Frank Ocean at the top of the page, it references his LGBT preference in a very foul and disrespectful way and should be taken down IMMEDIATELY considering all of the buzz around this topic. The phrasing is explicit, how does something like that even make it to a final publish? It's ridiculous and completely inappropriate and makes me jeopardizes the honor and respect of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.211.243 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any sort of "final publish," pretty much anyone can edit the site (which means that pretty much anyone can fix it), and the result is displayed in real time as close as possible. The vandalism you were referring to was removed before I could even load the article, see here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jim Parsons

Resolved

– BLPN consensus is generally against inclusion of extended discussion of sexuality where irrelevant to points of notability or significance. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Interview of Jim Parsons with NYT is named a come out in 12 mainstream references but User:Bbb23 doesn't agree you can see history of the article, too [17] and i think i need a third party opinion. Thanks:)Ladsgroup^بحث 00:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Bbb23 isn't the only editor who disagrees with Ladsgroup, but by all means, come on down. There's nothing like another endless discussion about sexual identity to set Wikipedians a-chatterin'.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are secondary sources and they are reliable whether he stated that he is gay or not. :)Ladsgroup^بحث 01:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about not actually discussing his sexuality in the article at all? It has nothing to do with his notability - and gay actors (if that is what he is) are hardly a rarity. Wikipedia isn't a database on sexual orientation (or ethnicity, or preferred flavour of ice cream, or whatever...) Why does anyone think that our readers care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, other than the dozen reliable news sources that have seen fit to cover the story, per the cites Ladsgoup has provided to show the significance of the fact? This basic personal info belongs in the article. Having said that, I don't currently see any strong need to say more than the one sentence that's there now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What 'story'? What is 'significant' about an actor being gay? Why is it 'basic personal info'? Why should our readers care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Editors aren't actually arguing about whether the subject is homosexual. From the edit history and the talk page, that doesn't appear to be even disputed. What they're arguing about is whether a NYT article is reporting things that people have known for years and simply not bothered too much about, or whether it is reporting a coming out. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BBB and Andy - please stop beating the dead horse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I think a consensus on the issue is clear. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Remove the {{resolved}} template or re-post if things boil over again. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Resolved

– Try other fora: no BLP issue stated. JFHJr (㊟) 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an editing war regarding the subject which began on or around May 18th involving deletion of criticism of the institute as "anrachist" and "neoconfederate." The institute is closely associated with the campaign of GOP hopeful Ron Paul, so I assume the edit war will continue until after the Republican National Convention at the end of August. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute Observation Station (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've tied the institute to Ron Paul just now, but I fail to see how the article about the institute is a BLP concern. Clearly, it's made of living persons, but is any living person (cf. the institute) getting unduly negative treatment? JFHJr (㊟) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there's an edit war, consider posting at WP:EWN and WP:RPP or even WP:ANI. Any of those is probably a more apt forum. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Mises Institute is a BLP issue here. Ron Paul frequently discusses how Austrian economics is good and talks about Mises specifically. Whatever the case, the article certainly needs to be in line with NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Andrews (Trio Capital chairman)

Hello, this is my first time making a report like this so I'm not sure if this is right. Yesterday I reviewed an AFC submission ‎for "David Morisset (Australian writer)" from new editor Rivowriter. The article positioned the subject as the pen name used by David Andrews, who was known in the news as the chairman of Trio Capital, a fund company involved in a well-known public fraud. The article focused on the person as a writer and provided a list of self-published works. The reliable sources (respected Australian newspapers), however, mostly focused on the individual's involvement in Trio Capital, and the most contentious BLP claim made in the article--that Andrews made no wrongdoing regarding the fraud--was supported only by a blog post. Digging a little deeper, I found that "Rivowriter" is also the name of the blog written under the name David Morisset. It became clear that Rivowriter was probably Morisset/Andrews writing an article about himself. In reviewing the sources I found that Morisset/Andrews had notability with his involvement in Trio Capital and not really as a writer. Finding no AFC reason to reject the submission, I cleaned up the article, tagged it, removed the lists of non-notable works, and left a Talk page note about how it needs to be refocused. This morning I find that Rivowriter has blanked the article and PROD'd it for deletion, with: "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: last draft contained unsourced and potentially libellous material after change of heading to David Andrews (living person)" I really didn't change anything much about the claims made in the article, I simply refocused it from "David Morisset" to "David Andrews". What is to be done here? Thanks for your advice. Zad68 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the prod as he's clearly notable; I've also started to clean it up a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Birkenfeld

Resolved

– Article rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is for someone with time on their hands: I wonder about the recent edits, but could not easily which of the editors had changed quotes, for instance, and what the original publication had (a TIME article was mentioned). I'd do it but I'm looking at a few other things right now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work! Thank you Bbb23! JFHJr (㊟) 01:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Draper

I've stubbed and left an explanation at the talk page. I've also tagged for notability concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe an AfD is in order. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives

Resolved

– Removed. JFHJr (㊟) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a glaring BLP violation is found on an archived talk page, should it be removed in spite of the "do not edit this page" tag at the top? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Depends on how substantively bad the glaring violation is. Probably it's alright since it sat here for at least five days without being redacted. If it's god-awful, WP:OS might be needed. Link? JFHJr (㊟) 22:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I must've misread the first time, thought you meant in these archives. Sorry; what's the article? JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 16:I'm no fan of hers by any means, but the first post there is simply an attack. (crotch itch, nazi surplus, ect.) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeze. I removed it. Not harmful enough for oversight, though. JFHJr (㊟) 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Strong

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the personal section there is a racial slur about him please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.26.169 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, anyone can edit. Anyone can vandalize, but even you can remove it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page hook review

Today's main page includes a hook regarding a BLP subject that boils down an entire article to a single sentence that states "Did you know...that Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii published 172 medical research papers that reported falsified data, including 126 papers described as being "totally fabricated"?" The hook was removed by an admin for further review citing BLP and UNDUE concerns, but was restored (by another admin) only 30 minutes after discussion was opened on the talk page, citing concensus for its return. What worries me is that a contentious hook regarding a living subject could be approved for the main page with such a minimal amount of review. I'm also concerned that BLP issues can be raised and discounted so quickly. Would it be possible for additional review of the hook here? Note that as one admin has removed it, and one has restored it, it could be considered wheel warring to remove it again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hook seems to describe this living person's central notability. Some individuals are infamous in and because of their profession. It's a bit of a hatchet for a BLP, with some unneeded detail, but it doesn't jump out at me as over-the-top. Assuming the article won't be slated for deletion as an attack page or somesort, the hook itself — your actual question — seems okay to me. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This source goes pretty far in establishing that the central claim is true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the input JFHJr and Nomoskedasticity. The veracity of the article was not what concerned me; my concern was that such a wholly negative hook reagrding a BLP subject would be highlighted on the main page with what appears to be a very cursory review. I'm not overly-familiar with the DYK process, so perhaps this is par for the course, or there are additional layers of assessment that consider suitability that is not obvious here. Given the responses here it appears that I was being both overly-sensitive and overly-cautious. Note I haven't had a coffee yet, so please feel free to mentally re-arrange my thoughts here into something more coherent if necessary! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - DYK reviews sometimes don't look beyond the DYK criteria relating to hook verifiability, article size, and article recency. You were right to be concerned over whether anyone had considered the implications and consequences here. A further concern is that this is a Did You Know for someone who is currently in the news, and is more of a Did You Hear The Latest News. I had a cursory look around, and I came across one news aggregator that was hyperlinking to this Wikipedia biography as its news source. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how UNDUE would apply at all. The hook described the subject's primary notability, and there's no particular requirement that DYK items have more than the usual level of notability. (As opposed to ITN or OTD items, which are intended to be items of unusual importance or historical significance.)

In fact, I would argue that this hook has more notability than your average DYK hook. APL (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color me appalled by the notion that WP:BLP means that Wikipedia must say only nicey-nice things about living people until such time as those people have been convicted by the legal system. Let's not turn Wikipedia into Wikipablum.

I created the Yoshitaka Fujii article after I saw a news item about his incredible record of falsification of research, then discovered that Wikipedia did not yet have an article (although another user had added his name to Scientific misconduct). Not only is the information in this article fully sourced, but the case looks like an important story in the annals of research misconduct (albeit less colorful than the "painting the mice" case), as people will be spending a lot of time evaluating why the peer review system failed so significantly (much like the plagiarism detection cases prominently highlighted in last week's Wikipedia Signpost). As I see it, the DYK briefly called user attention to a new article about a somewhat obscure topic of greater social significance than most DYKs have.

This is absolutely not a case of WP:UNDUE, since almost nothing is documented about this person other than his fabrication of scientific results. Furthermore, highlighting his record does not necessarily show him in a negative light -- to the contrary, one could say that successfully passing off that many fake papers indicates that he is a person of tremendous talent.

It's absurd to suggest that negative information can only be mentioned if it has been verified in a court of law. Fujii will never be convicted by any legal system, but he has already been convicted by a jury of his peers (the fellow scientists who combed through his work record).

Neither the Wikipedia article nor the main-page appearance will do this man any harm. He has already destroyed his research career, and apparently he disappeared a few months ago (after the fraud first received significant attention). He is still a doctor of medicine, and I predict that he will spend the remainder of his career quietly working as a medical doctor in a small city, much like the "man who "painted the mice". --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waheeda Rehman

The birthday of actress Waheeda Rehman is shown incorrectly as May 14, 1936.

The correct date is 3rd February 1938.

Imdb.com shows the birthday correctly on their biography page http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0716851/bio

Please make this correction asap as whenever her fans or the media call her to wish her on her birthday, she ends up getting annoyed and is always wondering why her birthday is indicated incorrectly on a site as reliable as Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prempujari2005-6 (talk • contribs)

We can't use IMDb as a source for a birthdate. I have therefore removed the birthdate from the article. If you have a reliable source for Rehman's birthdate, please provide it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I've found thus far do not support a birth year of 1938. Some give her age at the time of publication and support 1936 as one possibility. One source gives May 14, 1936, specifically. Here they are: [18]; [19]; [20]; and [21]. BTW, not that it's important, but IMDb says February 3, not February 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My source is reliable but offline. All I have is their email adress. If I may why the excessive reliance on online reources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prempujari2005-6 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Harper's biography

Valerie Harper's stepmother's name is Angela Posillico, not Angela Basilico.

I am Valerie's half-sister, Virginia, and Angela Posillico was my mother.

Otherwise, it seems to be a very accurate article.

Thanks,

Virginia Harper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.142.174 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Vu Ha

Yulia_Latynina

Can I add "I want to inform the Spanish people that this "journalist" calls Ferdinand VII "absolute scum even by Spanish R(r?)oyal standards"..." to Talk:Yulia_Latynina? СЛУЖБА (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues aside, Wikipedia is not a forum. If that comment by her was notable and talked about in the press, it might have a place in the article (we'd have to see the sources to decide). But if your intention is merely to "inform the Spanish people", then you should find another website to do that on. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding poorly kept "anonymity" of an author

This is maybe a difficult one. I am assembling a couple of articles on recently released books here. The first listed book was recently published anonymously, with the author only being described and identified with an alias and a few identifying details, like being a former Chinese diplomat and government employee who now teaches at a school in Pennsylvania. Here on what seems to be his staff page at a university the author seems to rather more clearly identify himself. Would it be a violation of BLP, and possibly OR, for me to say they are the same people? John Carter (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kiilf, Sarah. "Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn't hear at Congress' contraceptives hearing". Retrieved 1 July 2012.
^ Abrams, Jim. "Sandra Fluke, Witness Snubbed By GOP, Speaks To Democrats About Birth Control". Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
^ "Contraception Controversy Continues: Meet Witness Sandra Fluke". ABC News. Retrieved 1 July 2012.
^ "Law Student Makes Case For Contraceptive Coverage". NPR. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

[1] Kiilf, Sarah. "Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn't hear at Congress' contraceptives hearing". Retrieved 1 July 2012.

[2] Abrams, Jim. "Sandra Fluke, Witness Snubbed By GOP, Speaks To Democrats About Birth Control". Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

[3] "Contraception Controversy Continues: Meet Witness Sandra Fluke". ABC News. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

[4] "Law Student Makes Case For Contraceptive Coverage". NPR. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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