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.

Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malcolm Gladwell, pop science (etc) writer and sometimes alleged corporate shill, has appeared here before (example). Waggish SPA Dontletthemwin (whose realization that the first syllable of "Hoary" has another meaning is often repeated, and is most perceptive and utterly hilarious), brand new SPA Javierachile and various IPs are very keen on the "corporate shill" angle. I've no particular beef about that, but they do base their charges on ho-hum sources, and alleged shilling by Gladwell now amounts to a lot of the article. Broadly interested Sunray and SPA Jacobesau have been removing this material. Two recent contributions by this special-purpose IP have particularly interesting edit summaries:

1. Hoary, read the correspondence Gladwell initiated with the author of the SHAME report. He didn't claim libel, just tried to massage the truth. Like you.
2. Twisting the knife in PR scum.

I love to be accused of malpractice, stupidity, etc: if the accusations are funny enough, I add them to the list near the top of my user page. But "massager of the truth" is pretty feeble stuff. If only I'd been accused of being "PR scum" too! That certainly would have gone on the list. But no, a look at the edit shows that the (alleged) "PR scum" is not me but instead Gladwell.

Now, if I see a BLP (or anyway a BLP of somebody other than a mass-murderer) being edited by some IP-hopper who calls the biographee "scum", I'm inclined to undo the damage and to s-protect. But in this case doing so might look like sour grapes or a mere tantrum. (Certainly the IP is obsessed with me: he looks at Sunray's edits, and takes them to be mine.) So I warmly invite an uninvolved admin to consider (i) s-protecting the article for at least one month and perhaps also (ii) threatening to crack a few heads. (Mine?)

There's some additional background material here (a WP:RS/N archive). -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two areas of controversy in the article, the first about the prices he charges for speechs, and the second about his corporate conflicts. The first area, which is in the Career section, has problems, not the least of which in my mind is how relevant all of this information is. That aside, the overall tone is non-neutral. Rather than reporting facts, it characterizes the facts in a POV way. In addition, it leaves out balance. For example, the quote about 30 speeches and thousands of dollars, leaves out that the source also said he sometimes gives speeches for nothing (comes right after the quote in our article). The Washington Post thing is really silly. It's a good source, but all our article does is note the headline - misleading and not very helpful.

The conflict material is worse. The Exiled source should be out. The sinister reference to an internal Philip Morris document is unsupported - the cited source is just the Washington Post article, no internal anything. The sentence after that is unsourced. The BofA stuff is repeated (already in the first part). Again, more importantly, the overall tone is wrong. It smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS and general editorializing.

Not sure what to do with the mess. I suppose semi-protecting it would help so that non-neutral editors can clean it up. It would certainly remove the IPs, but I haven't been able to sort out all the new accounts (are they related perhaps?), but, for example, I believe Dontletthemwin is auto-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The "sinister" internal Philip Morris document exists and is sourced in the SHAME report. A constructive editor would have double checked the source and added the reference, even if it was missing or improperly cited in the Wikipedia page. √√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=D418108EA3AFEAEF5B928624F3B4CFA8.tobacco03?tid=utg11b00&page=5 √√√√√Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are/were some blatant violations of WP:BLP in this article, IMO. In the past two weeks I have twice removed a text-book example of original research [1], [2]. The editor who is adding this material is writing from a particular POV and is using Gladwell's own writing and a couple of unreliable sources to draw conclusions about Gladwell's speaking engagements.

I agree with Bbb23 about the use of The Exiled as a source. While the authors of this blog-type website are ex-journalists, the publication is not peer-reviewed and doesn't meet the tests of WP:IRS and WP:VER. The article on Gladwell in Exiled [3] does not use reliable sources itself and draws conclusions that do not stand up to analysis

I commend Hoary's valiant attempt to reason with the POV-pushing editor in question on the article talk page and to bring the discussion here. I certainly agree that semi-protection is warranted, along with warnings and blocks to any editor who perpetrates the BLP violations. There is a fair amount of criticism in the article as it stands. We need to ensure that this is properly balanced. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noted your removals and am waiting to see what, if anything, happens next. That will affect any decision I make (another admin may feel differently) about semi-protection. If you have a moment, you might also want to address the "high price" speaking engagement material. It, too, is problematic as I commented above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the paragraph on "high priced" speaking engagements. The language used in our article did seem indicative of a particular POV as the sources simply raised questions about the optics of the Bank of America's publicity for their three engagements featuring Gladwell. Two of the sources reported Gladwell's response, so I've added that as a quote. Hopefully it is now more neutral in tone. Agreed that the response to these edits bears watching. BTW, I've added warnings about violations of WP:NOR for Javierachile and 50.47.103.17. Sunray (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that paragraph may give undue weight to the whole Bank of America issue, which seems pretty unexceptional once the anti-corporate spin is removed. Sunray (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident, the entry has been locked-down by the web's equivalent of Small Claims Court bailiffs. (Again, it is noteworthy that the standard applied to other criticisms on Gladwell's page, which are matters of opinion, are a joke. Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia?) The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. If the wealthy, world-famous Gladwell and/or his lawyers have read the SHAME report and not found it actionable, then it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. Whose exaggerated sense of this?
• The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Wrong, it's that criticism has to come from sources that really matter. ("Lamestream" sources, as they're sometimes called by those outside the reality-based community.)
• Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident [. . .] It's Shame's synthesis of alleged facts. Can you present a synthesis in, say, Mother Jones?
• Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia? Potential book-buyers, perhaps? Me, for example. Having had my head pounded by all the repetition in The Tipping Point, I need to know that the author isn't as repetitive before I try him a third time. (The second was Blink, a lot better.) Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Certainly, though such criticism of living writers is disappointingly muted. (Take Dan Brown, for example: there's criticism from only one source, and a disappointing silence about the volleys of criticism from Geoff Pullum and others.)
• The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. With relief thus sharpened, we can expect that the report, and the violations, will be taken seriously by, and the gist reiterated by, other sources, not all of which are in thrall to Gladwell or his alleged puppetmasters. Why the rush?
• The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. (i) I like "milquetoast", a word that's used too seldom. (ii) "Whoring": the author and User:Dontletthemwin share a liking for this word. Could they be related? (iii) A "milquetoast rejoinder" -- terrible! Shame's own interpretation is that Gladwell is "showing signs of cracking". So let him crack. The cracking of Gladwell will surely get into the news media (which may be wary of actual content, but which love a "human interest" story). And there you are: "reliable sources".
• it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. A bit of work with a good thesaurus will provide plenty of alternative formulations: "timidity", "mealymouthedness", "judicious omission", etc etc.

-- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hoary's Wikipedia editing rule of thumb: If Anderson Cooper didn't report it, it didn't happen.

√Dontletthemwin (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your little fantasies about me, Dontletthemwin. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This amounts to a lengthy refusal to confront that a favored author has violated the most basic ethical rules. It speaks to an intellectual passivity that allows frauds like Gladwell to function - nothing new there, unfortunately. Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's, but you may dismiss it because Reuters is a strictly fly-by-night operation. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ As for "Why the rush?", let's discuss "Why the contorted denials?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem a bright enough fellow, 50.47.103.17. I therefore wonder why it is that you can't grasp simple concepts, e.g. that although violations of basic ethical rules occur all the time, it's not WP's job to report them. Before apoplexy fells you, let me add that although violations of basic ethical rules are whitewashed all the time, it's not WP's job to report this whitewashing either. Look, just read and digest WP:V and the other WP policies. Admittedly, these make for unexciting reading. So another option open to you is just to go away, safe in the confidence that what's written by Exiled, Shame and the rest will soon make it into "established" ("lamestream") publications, whereupon it can go into WP.

You say: Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's [. . .] http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ Now you're talking! Or anyway seeming to. Let's take a look.

Salmon (your author) says that Frank Partnoy says Lehmann Brothers:

brought in Malcolm Gladwell, who had just published Blink, a book that speaks to the benefits of making instantaneous decisions and that Gladwell sums up as “a book about those first two seconds.” Lehman’s president Joe Gregory embraced this notion of going with your gut

and handed out copies of Blink. Salmon says that Andrew Sullivan thereupon asked "Did Malcolm Gladwell cause the recession?"

Yes, Sullivan did indeed ask that. But he was too busy/lazy even to attempt an answer. Salmon doesn't attempt an answer either, but he does ask Gladwell. More particularly, he asks Gladwell (more or less) "Did you (A) destroy Lehman Brothers, or (B) screw up the world?" (Ah, the smell of good two-fisted journalism!) Gladwell's reply is interesting. Two of its points: (1) the book describes the power of fast thinking -- including its destructive power and dangers; (2) the talk he gave was about the “fragility” of gut decisions–and about how if they are to be useful they have to be defended against bias and corruption. I've no idea about the truth of (2). As for (1), it is true. Salmon perversely ignores this, instead sarcastically saying that (2) is true. It's almost as if Salmon is upset (something prompts him to make a tragic misspelling of Partnoy's name).

This is feeble stuff by Salmon: starts well, but turns into what looks like a tantrum at having been outfoxed. Not as feeble as Sullivan, but feeble all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoar, let me see if I understand your position on sources: Internet-era independent news media publications cannot be used for BLP entries. That about right?

Dontletthemwin (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I read it. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Check.

Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So if an internet-era independent news publication has such a reputation, it's fine. ¶ Just what is supposed to constitute such a reputation is sometimes unclear. Despite plentiful evidence (PDF example) that MSNBC is bad, CNN is worse, and "Fox News" is horseshit, a great number of WP editors insist (e.g. here) that even "Fox News" should be treated as a news source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Even when you're succeeding with this klutzy coverup, Hoary, your bias glows like Vegas neon, flashing weak tells that lead to even more questions ("your author"? "tantrum at being outfoxed"? conflating WP policy with your personal opinion?). This breezy abuse of process is another feature of censorship, putting the cart of received opinion before the horse of embarrassing revelation. Regardless, I appreciate the admission that the corruption of WP editors allows blind spots in the historical record. But that also raises the issue of this page's existence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_fraud While no one has accused Gladwell of lying outright (as of yet he, and you, are just trying to conceal the facts), the various accounts wallow in ethical violations by living persons, including stealthing WP edits. Last note: thanks for the backhanded compliment, but if we're baring our souls I don't think you're too bright. You come across with enough education to embarrass yourself, but not enough to understand an operator like Gladwell. You'd better leave that to the pros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, if you're a pro, who's paying you? -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm, is that you? All stealthy and vain about your Wiki page? Have fun looking over your shoulder, because the SHAME report is already out in the world. It's only a matter of time before someone blindsides you with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Make your mind up, IP. Do I lack "enough [education] to understand an operator like Gladwell" (you above, on 30 July), or am I Gladwell? ¶ 2. Let's assume for a moment that I am not Gladwell, but just some undereducated person who (out of stupidity, and perhaps unlike yourself) chooses to edit Wikipedia for no remuneration. My blindsiding will be of no consequence. Let me autoplagiarize from a screenful or so above: Shame's own interpretation is that Gladwell is "showing signs of cracking". So let him crack. The cracking of Gladwell will surely get into the news media (which may be wary of actual content, but which love a "human interest" story). -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser

NLT --- Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Raymond Hoser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030 Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred. Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter. The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well. As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith. Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones. A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers. Thank you. Snake Man Raymond Hoser Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles Phones: (Redacted)

Ross Rowland

Ross Rowland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Southern Railway of Vancouver Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unsigned user keeps restoring a lengthy, unsourced paragraph that violates WP:BLP. I've deleted the paragraph several times, but he keeps restoring it. I might suggest that the IP numbers that he uses (there've been at least two) be blocked from editing this article.

He also repeatedly restores a similar paragraph in Southern Railway of Vancouver Island.

n2xjk (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted (as unsourced), but I suspect that won't be the end of it. You might need to take it to WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• There's been nothing but editorialization and vandalism from those IP addresses, which all geolocate together and to the places that the vandalism is related to, for four years. Witness this edit and this edit, for example. I've revoked their editing privileges indefinitely. (They, in particular the IP address apparently assigned to a business local to the area, seem to be stable assignments. There are a few more domestic and cellular telephone IP addresses from 2008 and 2009 that were clearly the same person that I've left unblocked.) Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. He's back on another IP doing the same thing. n2xjk (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have requested semi protection of both articles at the WP:RFPP - Youreallycan 16:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Update - both articles semi protected by Ponyo - Youreallycan 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! n2xjk (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP is a WP:GA - and has been altered to describe him as a Non observant Jew - without discussion or any additional reliable citations - Youreallycan 22:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff in question. There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - Youreallycan 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If they describe him as non-religious, then non-observant is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase. I don't think it's better, but I also don't think it's worse, or problematic in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

YRC has a valid point - the wording should precisely reflect reliable sources here, especially considering the background of the BLP on this noticeboard in the past. Collect (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we're supposed to paraphrase and use our own words. Is there some connotative difference between non-observant and non-religious? From an outside perspective, I could see an argument made that "non observant" is more NPOV than "non religious" because because the latter might imply that he is somehow opposed to the religion, while the former simply states that he chooses not to observe the religious practices. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no difference. What that means is that it's okay that the change was reverted. But it also means that there was no reason to bring it to BLPN in the first place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Above: There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Oh really? To me, the former encompasses atheism (although it doesn't imply it), whereas the latter suggests that the person skips the rituals often associated with his beliefs. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this assertion rooted in knowledge about Judaism, or is it supposition based on what the words suggest to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be rooted in knowledge of the English language. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed -- but since that evidently isn't sufficient to decide what the best expression is in this context I was also curious regarding knowledge about Judaism. But I'm not sure there's a live issue at this point about how to edit the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The disputed addition has been removed and not replaced so no there is no, as you call it, "live issue" - Your assertion that you dispute the rejection of the the desired alteration is somehow "rooted in knowledge about Judaism" - I return to my original rejection of your POV - Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - - no its not - its also clearly not as User:Nomo claims, a perfectly acceptable paraphrase and its important to focus on these POV desired additions and clarify them as examples for the wider project - Youreallycan 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—in my opinion, "nonobservant" and "nonreligious" mean the same thing—in relation to Jews. These are locutions that are both used. Hoary does not seem to be considering these terms in relation to Jews. Nomoskedasticity is making a valid point when he asks Hoary if his/her assertion is "rooted in knowledge about Judaism". Hoary makes reference in his post to "beliefs" but "beliefs" are not what make a Jew. You will even find in our Who is a Jew? article no suggestion that a Jew is a person who holds a particular belief. The 4 sources in our Ed Miliband article relating to him being Jewish do not use either of the two terms considered above. We have this source, this source, this source, and this source. The two considered terms, or variants on them—"not religious" and "non-observant"—are not found in the sources relating to Jewishness, in our Ed Miliband article. I think these terms all mean the same thing. Again—we are speaking about these terms in relation to Jews. Halacha is what is being referred to. All of these terms (including the variants) are conveying that the Jewish person described by these terms is not observant of halacha. If you feel these terms mean or imply different things can you please describe those distinctions? Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Miliband himself is quoted in one of those citations as saying , "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." - that is close enough to our comment of Miliband is Jewish but not religious for me. - We should take great care not to assert a not citable/not commonly used status to his Jewishness/to his faith that is not there and imo. non observant Jew does that, where the detail we have now is easily supportable from the subjects own comments. Whereas, .... is a Marxist Atheist non observant Jew - seems a bit at odds, wouldn't his secular upbringing and his lifetime of atheism make the non observant bit redundant? - this is really just my own personal query , as far as the article goes - Miliband is not widely reported as a non observant Jew - and we shouldn't either - he is widely reported and has himself commented that he is not religious and that is how en Wikipeda should/and is reporting about him also - apart from times like this when drive by POV accounts/IP addresses change it to what they think/prefer.Youreallycan 08:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—can you consider the word "secular" for our sentence? I think it means the same as "nonobservant" and "nonreligious". Consider this source: "Secular Jewish candidate Ed Miliband beats his older brother to win leadership of Britain's Labor party."[4] Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider secular unless multiple mainstream sources (a preponderance) were using secular to describe - him . or even better if he used it to describe himself - apparently and this is just my personal interest web search results - secular Jew is interpreted differently depending on who is doing the interpretation. - we have his own comment to report so its by the bye as to using other labels - unless widely used. Youreallycan 05:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Above: Nomoskedasticity is making a valid point when he asks Hoary if his/her assertion is "rooted in knowledge about Judaism". Hoary makes reference in his post to "beliefs" but "beliefs" are not what make a Jew. You will even find in our Who is a Jew? article no suggestion that a Jew is a person who holds a particular belief. The second sentence of the article "What is a Jew?" appears to raise the question of beliefs (via "religious"); and apparently related words such as "faith", "principles" and "tenets" recur throughout the article. (The article does indeed explicitly rule out the matter of belief, in "Religious definitions: Halakhic perspective"; but this is just one part of "Religious definitions".) Anyway, the article (understandably and properly) concentrates on Jewish and historically significant ideas of "Jew" (and, presumably, words of other languages regarded as equivalent to this). My comments weren't rooted in knowledge about Judaism. Used within an article in English about a British politician (and not about law, etc), "Jew" is just another English word, and thus its meanings are those determined by (A) practice (however some may deplore these meanings) rather than (B) anybody's dictate. If EM's attitude to religion is what I think it is (and I could be wrong), and if you call him "a non-observant [[What is a Jew|Jew]]", then you'll be well understood by some readers but for many others you're either inviting misunderstanding or expecting a read through a (necessarily) long and complex web page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the umpteenth time, as the Milibands get dragged into this over and over again. When a major personality has NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, to do with his/her religion (any religion) and never identifies with it in any way at any time, it is then totally irrelevant and one should wonder why it is that some people love sticking the label "Jews this that and the other" where it looks highly suspicious and more than anything that a NPOV encyclopedia should be doing. When in doubt, leave it out. There are more important features about Miliband than his supposed Jewish ancestry that he does not practice, preach or care about in the least so why do some editors here so carry on about it? This discussion is just a waste of time. IZAK (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point. But I suppose there's a viewpoint that Wikipedia should cater for the concerns, no matter how bizarre, of its readers. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hoary, it's the job of editors to act maturely and not make WP into another version of yellow journalism or worse, with taints of Der Sturmer, to please the crooked projections and perceptions of twisted minds. If someone wants to state matter of factly, citing a WP:RS that the Milibands have a Jewish parent or grandparent (as many WP articles do about subjects), nu, that might not be that bad, although that too is not required. BUT, to state that someone is a "non-practicing XYX" or "non-observant Jew" is a value JUDGEMENT that is NOT encyclopedic. Biographies do not say about subjects that their subjects "did not practice their faith" that is basically WP:LIBEL, and how can anyone judge the religiosity of a subject? Will they count the number of times he has gone to synagogue, if he had a bris or barmitzvah? Often-times even when marrying a gentile many Jews remain members of synagogues or just plain feel connected inside to Judaism and it is not the job of WP EDITORS to get into those kinds of value and moral judgments by playing God. Unless, of course, they are just here to violate WP:POINT and WP:NOTSOAPBOX and want to smear and attack a politician because it's only simple antisemitism at work. That's why it's always good policy to just back of from making judgments about any major figure's religiosity. WP is not a "father confessor" nor is it a "religious tribunal" to measure how "observant or not" anyone is. What would be next, that a subject is deemed "not religious/observant or even secular/atheistic or cool or with it enough, or just out of it and boring" by what junk journalism may write out there on such topics? It's obviously just NOT encyclopedic, because it's both intellectual and literal trash. To repeat, articles do say that "so and so was of Jewish parentage/ancestry" and MUST cite a source for that, especially if so and so has never admitted to it or never talks about it, but editors must NEVER make judgements about how "observant" or religious or non-religious anyone is, because it stinks and has no place in a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooman Majd

Hooman Majd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A couple of editors are trying to insert right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article.[5][6] Hooman Majd is an independent mainstream commentator and a US citizen, who regularly appears on ABC, CNN and NBC news as an expert on Iran.[7] The lead is no place for libelous statements/subjective opinions about the subject, and a clear violation of WP:BLP. This is like putting Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin, into the lead of her article as a fact. I am hoping a few more people would keep an eye on this article. As a last resort, I may have to notify the subject of this article, to file a complaint with Wikipedia office. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of editors have been trying to insert what appears to be libelous statements from a right-wing/neo-con editorial against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article Hooman Majd.[8][9] These are very serious accusations. Hooman Majd is an independent mainstream commentator and a US citizen, who regularly appears on ABC, CNN and NBC news as an expert on Iran.[10] This is like putting Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin, into the lead of her article as a fact. Such material, which is basically subjective gossip/opinion as oppose to an objective fact, accusing a living person of being an agent of another government, does not belong in a living person's article, let alone the lead, even if they're sourced. I can find a sourced derogatory statements about many public officials in editorials by their opponents, it doesn't mean that I can go and dump it into the lead of their Wikipedia article. Now I'm puzzled as to what can be done about this. I tried to remove the libelous material, but I was reverted three times. I wanted to notify the subject of this article, to file a complaint with Wikipedia office, but I was given a warning for legal threats, which I believe is baseless, as it's the right of the subject to know what is being said about him, on his Wikipedia article, which might have real-life consequences for him. I was hoping for input from uninvolved administrators. What's the best course of action to take here? Can the subject be notified or not? Can an administrator intervene here to remove the possibly libelous material? Kurdo777 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid using words like libelous for a start. But if you want quick action on a BLP issue, best place to take it is the BLP noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the material is sourced to something called the National Post. This appears to be a more or less right-wing newspaper (A), but one devoted to the notion that Israel is Good and Iran is Bad (B). (A) may be tolerable but (B) should set off warning bells. The article says, inter alia:

The British Observer newspaper has described Majd as a “high profile explainer of the Iranian regime” who “honed his polemical skills by defending the nascent Islamic Republic to Iranian emigres at Speakers’ Corner in London.”

and sources this to the National Post. This is odd, in that in principle and usually in practice all material from the (London) Observer is available at guardian.co.uk, a fact that is (or should be) well known to literate contributors to Wikipedia.

It turns out that the quotes are real, from this Observer review of a book by Hooman Majd. Of course the Observer said no such thing; instead, Roland Elliott Brown said it in the Observer. (Interestingly, Brown turns out to have also contributed to the National Post. Actually he pops up in various places not usually thought of as lefty hotbeds, e.g. here.) But they've been cherry-picked from the start of a paragraph, which concludes that Majd is a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists. This same article continues to say such things as that Majd concedes that Iran's 2009 "election" fielded only regime-vetted candidates and was stolen, and that the reigning administration is "increasingly fascistic". There's no mention of this kind of thing in the resulting Wikipedia article, which does look highly dubious. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuff in the green box moved here from WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thats a bit more troubling as far as cherry-picking sources go, but at least there is a solid source to build from now. Although now I am irritated why the problematic bit in the lead didnt show up when I did a search. (All I got were national post results) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the alleged inserters of "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar." I did take the quote “high profile explainer of the Iranian regime” from the National Post (the 7th biggest English-language newspaper in Canada and 2nd 4th biggest in Toronto. It's not exactly Newmax or Fox News and (on further examination, National Post is pretty ideological) if others feel the need I'm happy to add something like "according to the pro-Israeli National Post newspaper." I would have searched for the quote in the original source but I'm at work and time was short. I'm more than happy to change the wording in the article to "Roland Elliott Brown, writing in the Observer, has called Majd `a high-profile explainer of the Iranian regime to American audiences` and `a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists`", or something shorter.

Anyway I think there is a very big difference between saying `He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions` (my wording), and "essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime" (as Kurdo's accuses me).

(PS, anyone puzzled by why this issue wasn't settle in a civil talk page back-and-forth might want to look at the long (many years) and tortuous attempt by myself and some others to fix (what we feel is) an appallingly bad article on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that Kurdo has long ferociously defended.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First thing to catch my eye here is that I'm being attacked by Kurdo777 as an editor supposedly adding "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements" to an article. How laughable my friends would find that statement... I'm quite the liberal. What I was doing in the article was reinforcing the fact that the cited source was being interpreted correctly. I couldn't give a fig for Mr. Majd... I had never heard of him before coming to the article and reading the cited source. I have no horse in the race. My initial interest was the result of BoogaLouie's talk page being on my watchlist, and thus I saw a sharply worded warning from Kurdo777 to BoogaLouie, one which made me curious to see what the problem was. At any rate, I determined there was no violation of BLP because the source was not being misused. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. I did a search to see what other sources had talked about the tweets and found an article in Huffington Post, (which far from being neo-con is on the Republican Party shit list). It notes that `The Amazon listing for his (Majd's) most recent book, "The Ayatollahs' Democracy. An Iranian Challenge", touts his "privileged access to the Iranian power elite"`, and as far as Majd's denial of making the tweet goes, Various Twitter users, however, have argued that the fact the tweet originated from the same application regularly used by Mahd and that it was so quickly deleted, only to be followed by more tweets about Afshin-Jam, suggests the account was not hacked. You can see the Twitter debate in the slideshow at the bottom of this story. (from Nazanin Afshin-Jam Target Of Offensive Tweet, Hooman Majd Blames Hackers The Huffington Post Canada | By Michael Bolen )

So please, less hysteronics about "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements" --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart, Rupert Sanders, Robert Pattinson

There's edit-warring on these articles regarding reports of one cheating with another on the third, so here's a place for the centralized discussion. The cited source is People (magazine), which includes an apology-quote from one regarding the incident. There are WP:RS concern about the source, and even if true, WP:UNDUE for a maybe-trivial bit of celeb gossip substantially based on paparazzi-like photos in Us Weekly (another WP:RS concern). DMacks (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think it is true since there are pictures to prove it and many serious sources have reported of it, too. These are just some of the articles.teammathi 10:25, 26 July 2012 (CET)

I read this article from the BBC about 6 hours ago, and it mentioned the existence of photographs; now it doesn't. GiantSnowman 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a source for further information on the direct subject, but Stern 2012 makes a good case for sensible editorial judgement. That's sensible editorial judgement by us, Wikipedia editors, as well as by everyone else. (It's amusing when one can just cite sources to make BLP Noticeboard arguments.) Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stern only wrote that Stewart shouldn't be the one getting all of the blame. Nobody here is blaming anyone. It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened and as long as it's written objective I think it should be in the article. teammathi 13:21, 27 July 2012 (CET)

"It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened" - No it isn't, it's a story printed in a gossip magazine with photos (very grainy difficult to see what's happening photos) - The fact that the same story was printed in several magazines makes it no more valid! Severniae (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN covers this extremely well I think, there is an accusation, and a notable scandal. The incident can be mentinoed, but it must not be stated that she objectively had an a affair, just that the story exists. Further, her public apology, the photographs etc push this far beyond mere rumor. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, except that in this case, the public figure isn't denying the allegations, unlike the one in your example. Stewart owned up to it and issued a public apology for cheating. It would be wrong if the article stated "she had an affair" or something like that, because she didn't comment on that - but she DID confirm what the pictures depicted and apologized for the cheating portrayed in them, and that's strictly what her article and Pattinson's article refer to: Us Weekly released pictures of Stewart cheating on Pattinson with Sanders, Stewart in turn apologized for the cheating shown in those pictures. I really don't see why this is such a controversial issue. If Stewart had denied it or even just refused comment on it, I'd say it shouldn't even be mentioned in the articles because it would be nothing but gossip - but since she has directly admitted to it and made it a public issue by releasing a statement, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case.Starswept (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I ran across the Stewart article by accident and believe mention of the stories does not need to be on Wikipedia per WP:BLP. 1) The original source is apparently grainy photos in a gossip magazine. 2) It gets backed up by a claimed "apology" in another gossip magazine. Other media is citing the two gossip magazines looking very much like WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. FWIW, the Kristen Stewart article links to http://www.kristenstewart.com/ which I assume is her official web site. The bio on that site claims she's "currently dating actor Michael Angarano." That presumably is a case to remove the entire paragraph that covers rumors over her relationship with Pattinson much less that the tabloids are now claiming she's cheating on Pattinson. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)]

Stewart and Angarano broke up years ago. That website has not been updated in a long time - look at its filmography page, the last film of hers it lists is from 2010. She's made several movies since then according to IMDB (and general knowledge). Anyways, if the powers that be of Wikipedia don't want any mention of this in the related articles, so be it - but I still find it curious that you all seem to believe an official statement from Stewart is akin to the idle nattering and speculation of a gossip magazine simply because her publicist chose to release the statement to a celebrity magazine, People (as most celebrity publicists do - it would be rather odd if they released a statement to the NY Times or the BBC, which I hope are busy covering actual news). It's rather interesting since Wikipedia articles on celebrities contain so much information gleaned verbatim from celebrity statements released by publicists to People - marriage announcements, engagement announcements, birth announcements, break-up announcements, death announcements, rehab announcements, announcements about injuries, etc. Yet when it's something "scandalous", official statements suddenly become suspicious and apparently moot. I've asked this before, but I still wonder what kind of proof would be necessary to substantiate this story if a statement from the person in question is insufficient (two statements actually, since Sanders also issued one)? As an aside, I find this all reminiscent of the "Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber" debacle, where Wikipedia ends up looking like something of a joke when it fails to include information that is ultimately unimportant to the respective articles, yet because it is well-known, looks like a glaring omission. Starswept (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

References

• Stern, Marlow (2012-07-12). "The Affair Witch Hunt: Leave Kristen Stewart Alone!". The Daily Beast. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Paloma Faith

Paloma Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is the wrong place, but I think something needs to be set in stone regarding Paloma Faith's birth year. It appears that she was born in 1981, but her birth year has been given as 1985 instead. Most sources say she is 26/27 (depending on how recent the article is, her birthday was last week), but so far there are no reliable sources to back up the fact she was born in 1981 and is 31. This issue has come up a few times on her article's talk page and the date in the article has also been changed a few times, but with no reliable source provided. I've come here for some advice on what to do. Do we add both years to the article, remove the year altogether (the day and month are correct) or something else entirely? - JuneGloom Talk 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It may end up like Sondra Locke with both years listed. See the long talk page discussions there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In England and Wales Births, Marriages and Deaths are recorded by the General Register Office, the index to these is widely available to subscribers of various family history sites like Ancestry, Find My Past etc. It is also available for viewing free of charge in various locations in the UK - British Library and some major libraries I believe. The LDS also provide free access to some of these family history sites at their Family History Centres as do many libraries. Many users here have subscriptions to allow them to view these public records which are copies of the UK official record. But there is regularly on Wikipedia an attitude that if something is not available free of charge online then it cannot be used as a reference, this rules out quoting any book in the British Library, any document in The National Archives and many other sources which is all rather ridiculous. jmb (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks a source must be available for free on-line can be directed to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPPRIMARY public records which include personal information such as date of birth should not be used as sources. Editors asserting that she was born in 1981 need to provide a reliable secondary source for their claim. January (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

However, BLPPRIMARY does not prevent primary sources being used in talkpage discussion to show that secondary sources are in error. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the birth register shows someone of the right name born in 1981, there is still the issue of identifying that person as the one the article is about. Even unusual-looking names can be shared by more than one person. This is the sort of problem that makes us cautious about using primary sources. If I understand the talk page, this person claims to be younger. If so, it is a BLP issue as well as a primary source issue. Without a "reliable secondary source" in support, I don't think it is permissible to rely on our own interpretation of a primary source to "prove" that someone is lying. Zero^talk 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In this the subject has quite an unusual combination of names so it is very unlikely that anyone else has that particular combination of names and can be easily checked with a search from 1837 to 2006 online, usually the mother's maiden name is used to check that the right person has been found. I find it incredible that Wikipedia does not consider the official national record of births is sufficient but for example an autobiography backed up by a press release from a spin doctor (sorry, PR agent) would be accepted! I am fairly sure that the more authoritative Dictionary of National Biography accept corrections based on the General Register Office entry? jmb (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that we don't break new ground in researching and reporting something that no-one previously has. But we also don't (or shouldn't) publish information we know to be false. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wim Crusio

Wim Crusio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for this subject was created in large part by the subject himself using two former editor pseudonyms, now banned, and is currently being actively managed by the subject using a third editor's handle, Guillaume2303. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.57.8 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is the BLP violation or policy concern ? Please provide evidence to support the statements you have just made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A notability issue was brought up on the talk page. It may have looked trollish to an un-involved editor and was removed. I had made a statement but have no qualms about the removal of the section. If there is a notabilty issue it should be decided by a project in that field. It is very technical research that the BLP has done and is doing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • His image links to 7 wikipedias in other languages. All articles named for him. I don't know if this helps notability.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It most definitely doesn't not. The existence of translations of this article has nothing to do with notability. Notability is in-depth coverage by sources from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Given past history on this article (which pre-dates your account and so you might not be aware of, but can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio, and several other places) I recommend taking such talk page comments with a large sackful of salt. The question could be raised by a good faith editor. Indeed, as you can see, it was once raised by the subject as well as by Hrafn. But it has a fairly long history of also being raised by bad faith ones. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• As with other bios of notable Wikipedia editors, this one is from time to time the target of vandalism and trolling. Together with some off-wiki harassment, this was the main reason that I requested a rename of my user account last year. Perhaps I should have gone for a complete clean start, so that no connection could be made between my WP and real-life identities, but generally the people that troll or harass off-wiki are not regular editors who know where to find the rename, so usually the rename is adequate protection. In any case, I would appreciate if someone here could have a look at the talk page edits made in the last few days, especially the reversal of the archiving. I think that archiving this sort of trolling drivel after 6 months is more than reasonable (in fact, I think that this stuff would have been removed from talk pages of bios of non-WP editors). So to respond to Sean.hoyland's question above: the BLP concern is the comments posted by the IP that started this thread. The concerns voiced by the IP above are COI concerns and could easily be addressed by a checkuser investigation. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP children

Do we list their names and birthdates in articles? If so, under what circumstances? Do they have to add to the notability type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In general a first name and year of birth should be sufficient if reliably sourced and notable. The inclusion of family names is covered under WP:BLPNAME. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME, we should generally avoid naming children at all, unless there are specific reasons why we should (and being sourced isn't a reason): "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". "X has a son and a daughter" is generally sufficient - And no we should never give birthdates of children, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Notability isn't inherited (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), and we should treat the children of the subjects of our articles with the same respect we do other non-notable individuals: more so, if they are minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wise responses. Would someone like to edit Nicole_Richie#Family_and_relationships to fit policy/guidelines?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited to state that the couple has two children.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone added names and birth years again. I edited to 1 girl, 1 boy in the infobox. Should the family section in the body include the same?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

2012 Aurora shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. Recently, I added a quote to the 2012 Aurora shooting article attributed to political scientist Robert Spitzer at the State University of New York at Cortland.[11] As you can see from his Wikipedia entry and his faculty page, Spitzer is considered an expert on gun issues in the United States.[12] The quote I added follows:

There was a law called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], but the law was written with an expiry date and Congress let it expire in 2004. That law banned possession of certain types of assault weapons, including the weapon James Holmes used in Aurora last week. The law banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so people could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. But since the law expired in 2004, Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time. It’s like something out of a science fiction novel, frankly.[13]

The quote was quickly removed as a BLP violation by an editor, who used the summary explanation, "removed as per BLP, no conviction".[14] Is it a BLP violation to cite an acknowledged expert on this case? Is there a problem with Spitzer referring to Holmes in this way rather than as a suspect? If so, can the quote be altered in whole or in part, or paraphrased to preserve the content? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], would have prevented the use of one of the weapons purportedly used in the Aurora shootings. That law also banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so the general public could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. Since the law expired in 2004, weapons that hold 100 bullets at a time are now able to be legally used. - http://www.france24.com/en/20120723-usa-guns-supreme-court-barack-obama-mitt-romney-constitution-right-arms-james-holmes-colorado

Something like the wording above? -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because of the 'Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time.' sentence. I would recommend that all run far and fast from this issue or be dragged into the mud. Editors have been pushing to include gun debates in an article that involved guns. I think this is the 5th dispute forum that it has been brought to on this article alone. I just had a good laugh at an ANI about me moving the discussion to a proper forum. It belongs in a gun debate forum, not every article that has a gun in it. This forks the debate on how much text we should include about gun debates in articles. Like the 'ethno-tagger', 'tabloid-pusher' issues this is in dispute forums, talk pages, Jimbo's email, Obama's bathroom wall, etc, etc. Find a forum to reach consensus on it and stop dragging it all over articles and dispute forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you misreading this thread and confusing it with another discussion? This thread is about including facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting attributed to an expert on the subject. There is nothing here about a "gun debate" or a "forum". If you believe that this expert on gun law is wrong, then provide facts, otherwise, please stop trying to reframe this discussion. The cited material is relevant and topical and will be added back into the article in an appropriate manner. Again, this has nothing to do with a debate about guns. It is a simple recitation of the factual nature of federal and state law from the perspective of an expert on gun law. Per NPOV, significant views should be included and that's exactly what I'm going to do. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the forum: Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting multiple talk pages and noticeboard discussions. Citing facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting have nothing to do with a "gun debate". Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an ongoing dispute over whether to include an article written by the subject about race and other things and also a blog entry from the MMfA by an un named staff writer. This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial. Could uninvolved eyes please chime in on the talk page where it is discussed in a few sections now. Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this, and it turns out that we have both a primary source to confirm what Sowell said and a secondary source to indicate its notability. I do not see any potential for a BLP violation, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, so I'm leaving out that paragraph for now.

Please do look into this and make some sort of ruling, so that we can either restore the paragraph or reconsider what can be salvaged from it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You looked into this? You are the one arguing for inclusion! Please explain why you feel a blog written by an un-named staffer to be worthy of inclusion here.--Mollskman (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to be able to get a final idea as to the value and reliability of MMfA. We've had numerous discussions across a number of forums, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus in either direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA like Newsbusters reports on hundreds of items weekly, all of which are citical of libs or cons. There has to be some standard to determine weight, less articles become dumping grounds for every partisan beef that one side has against the other. A simple standard which can be easily applied is that an event must have weight established by mainstream sources before even considering the criticism from these hyper-partisan sources. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman said up front that "This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial" so any talk about the source being unreliable is just a distraction. I'd like to hear someone explain why they believe this is a BLP violation as opposed to a minor content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not assume that Mollskmman's issue is the only one. It is an issue of RS as well for many of us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is grossly misused - and makes a claim not actually present in the editorial. When I sought to use the actual words in the editorial, I was summarily reverted. Also the claim that some backed the "comparison" is inapt as no such direct "comparison" is in the editorial. The closest the editorial comes is that it says the Reichstag gave Hitler excessive powers, but it does not say in any language that Obama is like Hitler. Nor did Palin say "Obama is like Hitler" - she said that the BP fund was unconstitutional. Such political silly season edits are beneath contempt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be evident to any thinking person that the editorial in question implicitly compares Obama to Hitler (and to Vladimir Lenin, for good measure). Whether that editorial deserves mention in Sowell's biography, or whether Media Matters is a suitable source for a biographical article, are separate questions.

If the editorial has not attracted any notice outside the usual partisan outlets, then it probably isn't notable enough for mention in Sowell's biography. It is arguably relevant to describe Sowell's role as a sometimes rhetorically extreme partisan polemicist, but this particular instance it seems like the editorial in question hasn't really attracted much notice outside the insulated partisan blogosphere.

I'm not especially comfortable using Media Matters (or any such partisan website) as a source in a BLP, either. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? I have read and reread it now and do not find the "implicit" comparison there. I have reasonably good eyesight for such things, and I consider comments like "any thinking person" to be contemptible on any Wikipedia noticeboard. Perhaps you should reread what WP:BLP considers proper when making "implicit" charges - last I checked, the reliable source must back up the claim precisely and fully. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia Media Matters article - mediamatters website - yes - its a strongly opinionated organization. - Youreallycan 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's a sourcing issue if all we have is MMfA. However, there are other sources to show notability:

Alan Colmes, while nominally liberal, is notable and reported on this editorial. [15][16]

Sarah Palin, who is notable and non-liberal, endorsed the editorial. [17]

Breitbart, also notable and non-liberal, noticed and reported. [18]

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, notable and non-liberal, endorsed it. [19]

Washingon Monthly, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [20]

Washington Post, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [21]

I could go on. Do I need to? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been solved twice

In the first dispute resolution:

*Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And in the second one.

This discussion has gone WAY off track. The dispute resolution does not address conduct matters - and this discussion has been very unproductive. If a discussion has taken place regarding the use of a source on the RSN and a clear result was not achieved, you can ask for more input with a community RFC. Yelling at each other is not the way to resolve this. From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven Zhang 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that the column does not compare Hitler to Obama other than what one person sees as an "implicit" comparison (which I regard as simmply meaning "A person I do not like used "Hitler" within five hundred words of the word "Obama" but did not actually 'compare' the two.". I further consider saying that a direct comparison was made is thus a violation of WP:BLP as well as of WP:V in the first place. Further that the claims that people endorsed the "comparison" when it is clear they did not do any such thing (that is - they agreed with the column, but as the comparison is not explicit in the column, it is also thus improper to say that people who agree with the colum "endorse" a "comparison" per WP:BLP and per WP:V. MMfA's opinions should be clearly labelled as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, now. The article in question is entitled "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?" The first three paragraphs talk about how Hitler and Vladimir Lenin extended their authority. The remainder of article talks about how Obama is purportedly extending his authority. The author draws an implicit comparison between Hitler/Lenin and Obama. There is no reason to mention Hitler or Lenin in this context other than to compare them with Obama. This is the sort of reading comprehension typically tested at the grade-school level. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? As I read the article, and I assure you I am a competent reader of simple English, I find your "come on now" to be an inane sort of arguemnt. Your assertion of "implicit" comparison is one of the weakest reasons for making an explicit claim that the coomparison was made known to man. You could say "MMfA said the comparison was made" but asserting in Wikipedia's voice that others supported the "comparison" when the sources do not say they supported any "comparison" but that they agreed with the column as a whole is ludicrously weak. The last part whould say the people agreed with the column, not that they agreed with an "implicit comparison seen by MMfA and not by others." And the "comparison" bit is clearly opinion which per WP:BLP must be cited as opinion, same as for all such articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not expressed nearly any of the opinions which you attribute to me. I do not think the material belongs in the article, much less in "Wikipedia's voice". That should be evident from a very cursory reading of my comments in this thread. I think it's silly to pretend that the article doesn't make a comparison when it obviously does, but I've said my piece on that subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

CD, from the noticeboard header: "It is not a place that issues binding decisions on content - we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy." Your first link is from a now-banned user, your second is a premature closure that does not address the issue at hand, especially the lack of consensus as I demonstrated with my research. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not binding but the consensus for reliability is pretty clear (and again for the nth time the block wasn't relevant to the discussion). That aside, the second obviously did address it just as the first did. Even an outside editor here agrees with it. The fact is this issue has been over for a long time. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for reliability? Can you please point it out for us? Note, again, DRN is "not a place that issues binding decisions on content." Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Improper claims and improper sources

The claim is that anything which is an "implicit comparison" should be described as a "comparison" even when people reading the column do not see the comparison (20/20 eyesight for reading-beween-the-lines is needed to see the "comparison." Then people are stated to endorse the "comparison" when they only state they endorse the column. Lastly, one of the sources used is Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison an op-ed blog post titled Gohmert Endorses Sowell's Hitler Comparison used to state that title as a factual claim when it is obviously the opinion of the writer and hence is improperly used for a "fact claim" under WP:BLP. [22] shows a blanket reversion of my attempt at a reasonably NPOV claim - but the ones who read-between-the-lines seem determined to paint Palin, Sowell et al with the "He said the Hitler word in the same column as Obama therefore he is evil" brush <g>. BLPs are supposed to use claims directly supported by factual sources, not to make opinions into facts. Collect (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this should not be considered a comparison. "He compared Obama to Hitler" without context implies declaring Obama to be as evil as Hitler or to have done things similar to the things that Hitler is primarily known for. Even if the article literally compares some of Obama's actions to some of Hitler's actions, declaring that to be a comparison to Hitler--in the sense that most people would understand as a comparison to Hitler rather than in a literal sense--requires interpretation. Furthermore, in politics, this kind of misunderstanding is often purposely spread. Someone may say "a guy I don't like compared Obama to Hitler" because it is in some sense literally true, so he can't be accused of lying, yet he also knows that he is giving a false impression of "a guy I don't like thinks Obama is as evil as Hitler". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be definite agreement, at least, that the criticism should stay in the article even if we cannot agree on what sources to use. This is a key example of why using MMfA is problematic and why there's no consensus for or against its use. Should the section simply be reworded to say something like this?:

Thomas Sowell wrote an article in 2010 called 'Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?', about the BP oil spill escrow fund.[23] The article opened with details regarding Adolf Hitler and the Nazi rise to power, which was criticized by the Democratic National Committee as 'ridiculous if it weren’t so vile,' noting that 'it deserves to be marginalized.' Sarah Palin praised the article, recommending it to her followers on Twitter, prompting the President of People for the American Way, Michael B. Keegan, whether Palin 'agree[d] with Sowell that President Obama’s work to hold BP accountable for the worst oil spill in American history can be compared to the actions of Hitler?'[24] US Representative Louie Goehmert, a Republican from Texas, endorsed and recommended Sowell column on the floor of the US House of Representatives following the publication of the article.[25]

This allows for all the relevant information, doesn't rely on bad or partisan sources, and seems to encapsualate the issue in a more accurate, more neutral way. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fails to include the notable opinion of MMfA, yet includes hyperpartisan Palin and Gohmert foo. Shocking example of bias to include these individuals but not MMfA. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MMfA is inappropriate in this context, and there doesn't seem to be consensus for use in either direction. Sarah Palin, whether you like it or not, is a key political player in the United States. Louie Gohmert, whether you like it or not, is an elected official who took to the House floor to highlight the article. Both people's criticisms were highlighted by Politico, yet MMfA's "notable opinion" couldn't find its way into the text. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced this is good. The problem is that "comparing to Hitler" is taken by the average person to mean more than just "the word 'Hitler' appears in the comparison". It is normally taken to mean "compared them to the worst of Hitler's evils". And political pundits just love to deliberately confuse the former with the latter.

Sentences such as "agree[d] with Sowell that President Obama’s work to hold BP accountable for the worst oil spill in American history can be compared to the actions of Hitler?" are examples of such deliberate confusion. It is literally true that Sowell compared Obama's actions to Hitler's actions, but phrasing it that way implies, to most people, "he compared Obama's actions to mass murder" and "he thinks Obama's actions are as evil as Hitler's actions". The first of these implications certainly isn't true, and the second probably isn't (and if it is, it's an analysis by a political opponent, not an objective fact about the text). Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a direct quote and not something conjured up. Not sure how to fix that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on why you're using it.

If you're using it to show that Sowell compared Obama to Hitler, there's no reason for the quote at all, you can just go directly to Sowell's article and summarize it in a manner which makes it clear that it is a Hitler comparison in a literal sense but is not what many people would think of as a Hitler comparison.

If you're using it to show the existence of controversy over the comparison to Hitler, then you need to keep the quote as a piece of notable criticism, but presumably the controversy isn't one-sided and there must be people on Sowell's side who have pointed out that the comparison to Hitler did not imply that the two acts were of similar severity. You could quote one of them for the other side of the controversy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey has now asserted that this discussion either does not exist, or that it backs his edit [26] (edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): Rv edit based on misleading edit summary. using TW) and his comment on my UT page: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV.

I rather think this discussion exists here, and that it does not back his edit which makes the "fact" statement that Sowell "has been criticized for various remarks such as a comparison he made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler " Will others please so inform him? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He now accuses me of lies, of being unable to be "rational", of Wikilawyering, of lying that this discussion says opinions must be so labelled, of Palin et al being "idiot"s etc. Long screed, in fact. So now this is at WP:WQA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs

• Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs

Yup. Wikipedia really does have a Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs - though fortunately with only 4 'members'. Just how many policies does this appear to violate? I suspect the number of policies it doesn't violate is shorter. Anyway, it clearly violates WP:BLP for a start. Can someone with a strong stomach and experience of how one deletes categories please step in to remove it from our sight? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• - List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs - connected/uncited - Youreallycan 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I edit amost exclusively in soccerball - firstly I have no idea what the title means, but the subject matter is saying that a club in country X only fields players also from country X. It's unrefereced and non-notable - I'll PROD and CfD accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • soccerball, eh? I knew that there was the whole long editorial dispute over which "football" was football. I didn't realize that you'd gone to the extremes of making up your own names for the sports. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• It may or may not be a BLP violation. Calling it such might be a bit extreme. More importantly in this particular instance, it seems like Wikipedia editors making up their own idiotic names — "ethnically nepotistic" — for things that they don't know the actual names for, again. At least we have an article on the Bosman ruling. The actual name for these things is (pre-Bosman) "nationality restrictions", and (post-Bosman) "home-grown player rules"/"home-grown rules" (c.f. Special:Search/Home-grown player rule). A better categorization would be something like Category:Association football teams with home-grown player rules; although these rules appear to be at national association or confederation rather than at team level, and so a yet better categorization still wouldn't be of teams, albeit that it wouldn't be a very useful category and would be better done in explanatory prose in one of those redlinked articles. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, apart from anything else, it is making unsourced assertions about the ethnicity of team members - which is a WP:BLP violation. And asserting that anyone has benefited from 'nepotism' with no source is also a BLP violation. Actually, per WP:BLP I could have simply deleted the lot: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"... - need I go on? I raised it here, rather than the multiple other places that could have also dealt with it because it seemed the simplest way to handle it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. It's making assertions about hiring policies of team managers, and it's using an idiotic made up name for the thing instead of the real name. Try not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by Association football editors not knowing their subject and overreaching themselves to the extents that they make up bogus names like "ethnically nepotistic". This is straightforward original research — a novel, made-up-by-a-Wikipedia-editor, thing. It's easy to fix, because the thing in this case has an actual name outwith Wikipedia and is well documented. Just rename the article and use the plenteous sources that exist (There are papers in law journals about it.) to make it about home-grown player rules. Writing is your way to deal with this. Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment:. When I mentioned creating Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space I also mentioned we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline. We may also need a sexual orientaion and religon one. They also may be combined a bit. There was discussion on the template talk page but that may be the wrong forum to discuss a new guideline or policy. These issues can then be discussed on the guideline talk pages and instead of forums all over WMF. It is even bleeding over to commons and meta that I noticed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline". Like WP:BLPCAT you mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. A section in BLP may be too small to have a forum for it on its own talk page as well as ethnicity covers dead persons, teams like above, etc, etc. I also emptied the Ethnically nepotistic football clubs category. Someone may wish to MfD it. I don't have the time, nor do I care.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related AfD. GiantSnowman 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If I understand the policies involved I think they are neither nepotism nor about ethnicity. When I read "ethnically nepotistic" I assumed we would have an article on a soccer club dominated by Armenians living in the United States who consistently place Armenians, especially the nephews (if we are going for the original meaning of the term) or sons of current players. I am getting the impression that the "home-grown" rules are more about nationality than ethnicity, and that they do not work to favor the close relatives of those presently on the team.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I get some BLPN eyes at ANI?

Could I ask for some BLP experts to look at the BLP issue that the LP posted to ANI[27]? I'm open to the possibility that my comment might need rewording, and am trying to work out a way to make my point without BLP vios. However, the LP and others are using it as an excuse to delete content from my RFC/U response[28][29]. The text that the LP objects to has been pasted into ANI twice, once by the LP. The alternative proposal is down here[30].BitterGrey (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you find solid proof or simply retract it until such time as you have proof? Personal attacks without substance are nothing but personal attacks. In addition, being financially rewarded does not immediately create a conflict of interest for every edit in Wikipedia, and also does not mean that even COI edits are bad in themselves. The standard is pretty clear, does an edit improve the encyclopedia or does it fail to improve it? You felt that libel was a quicker route to getting your way in an argument rather than a solid and professional debate. Take it back, or back it up with solid evidence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• - User:Bittergrey has been blocked indefinitely by User:SarekOfVulcan for WP:Disruptive editing - Youreallycan 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gloria DeHaven

 Done

I think Hotel Mocambo (1944) should be added to Miss Gloria DeHaven's filmography in the relevant Wikipedia article (English language). As of July 30, 2012, it's missing. Too bad... Brumon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brumon (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't what we normally think of as a BLP issue, but a link to the film is listed there. it:Hotel Mocambo is the Italian title of what was called Step Lively (1944 film) in the US. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Năstase‎

Adrian Năstase‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sleeper account Elysander (talk · contribs) has suddenly awaken today (after 2 years) and started adding defamatory claims (in subpar English) on the article about former Romanian prime-minister Adrian Năstase‎ diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.Anonimu (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"he should have tried to shoot himself in the head"! Definitely subpar English, at best. I've reverted this, and will leave a message on Elysander's talk page suggesting s/he discusses this at Talk:Adrian Năstase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is NO evidence that Nastase's suicide attempt took place. In the Austrian, Swiss and German Press ( print and online) the rising doubts regarding this attempt are very well documented and recherched:

Krone [31] - Die Presse [32] - NZZ NeueZürcherZeitung [33] - Welt [34] - Spiegel Online [35] and many more sources ....

Quote Spiegel Online: "Um der Haft zu entgehen, inszenierte Nastase einen theatralischen Selbstmordversuch, was ihm jedoch nur einige Tage Aufschub verschaffte - inzwischen sitzt er im Gefängnis." To escape the arrest, Nastase staged a theatrical suicide attempt, which gave him only a few days' delay - now he is in prison'[36] -Elysander (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How do any of these sources support your edit suggesting that "he should have tried to shoot himself in the head"? In any case, the correct procedure is to discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not my subpar English but this dubious part of the Nastase article. The sentence with its quotes only reflects the situation in progress at a certain date based on informations given by Nastase's family and party. No third party has confirmed the theory of a suicide attempt til today. -Elysander (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Moheb Ullah Borekzai

Moheb Ullah Borekzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user named "Geo Swan" added “DoD claims he returned to supporting terrorism” to this biography.

I have checked the sources and found that this is not supported by any of the references. I ask this user for the reference that would support this claim but he did not provide me with a relevant reference that supports this claim. Instead that user replies with irrelevant walls of words and stonewalling.

I request someone from this board to correct or remove this false claim that has been introduced into this biography of a living person. Thank you. Gyrojeff (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

References 4, 5, and 6 discuss former Guantanamo prisoners who are suspected or confirmed terrorists. Reference 4 does not mention Borekzai's name as a confirmed re-terrorist. But references 5 and 6 mention Muhibullah (his alternate name per the bio) who was transferred to Afganistan in July 2005 as a suspected terrorist. However, he was apparently never convicted of any crime, hence his release. Also, DoD's statement about his current terrorist activity is categorized as a suspicion, not confirmed. He seems to be relatively unknown and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTABILITY would seem to indicate that he is not notable enough to have a wiki bio and/or no information about merely suspected criminal activity should be included in the article.Coaster92 (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Now under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Suliman Al Harbi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as i can see the BLP violation i pointed out is not under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Suliman Al Harbi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would appreciate if some administrator here could now remove or change it. Do we have special rules for suspects in Guantanamo? It is a very negative claim. This claim is not supported by any source. It is a BLP. What are we waiting for? BLP violations should be removed as soon as they have been identified. Gyrojeff (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the tip of an iceberg. But I would suggest you consider carefully whether this is actually governed by any rules about crime. These people, after all, are being held as "enemy combatants". It would appear that this is war news, coming from a Pentagon report as being described by the New York Times. This, of course, is a report of war from one of the involved parties, and is obviously not neutral, but it is as good a coverage of the position of one side as is plausible to obtain. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of corrections. You wrote: “These people, after all, are being held as ‘enemy combatants’.”

1. All of the alleged recidivists were released. So far as the information available to the public only a couple of these individuals were re-apprehended, so they WERE held as enemy combatants. With the possible exception of a couple of captives who may have listed on the one list of Bagram captives that has been published, none of them ARE being held as enemy combatants.
2. Some of the captives the DIA characterizes as recidivists, were cleared of being enemy combatants. Five Uyghur captives from China, who were sent to Albania, were listed as recidivists -- even though they were officially cleared of being enemies prior to their capture.

You are correct, being classified as an enemy combatant, when that Bush administration term was in use, was not, in and of itself a crime. The Obama administration has abandoned the use of the term altogether.

I would like to clarify what you are saying about neutrality. Are you suggesting that when third parties, like the NYTimes, or the scholars at Seton Hall University I mentioned below, comment on the DIA claims, their reporting is infected by whatever bias the DIA claims are based on? If you read the analysis in that scholarly paper you will see that they were skeptical of the DIA claims. So, I don`t think I agree that reporting on third party coverage of a non-neutral source is necessarily non-neutral.

Our policies and other wikidocuments on neutrality are full of instructions as to how to neutrally cover non-neutral references. You seem to be suggesting even neutral coverage of non-neutral references is off-limits in BLPs. Is this what you meant? Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The NYT is more neutral than the Defense Department, but there are obviously viewpoints in this conflict with which they would not dare to flirt. I certainly do not mean to exclude coverage of such a reputable source, nor of the classified report they report seeing, but it might be possible for you to work on being even clearer about how indirectly this allegation is made. To be clear, it sounds like this is close to a case where the allegation is not "presented as true" by the source you're using: the NYT seems to distance itself from a vague claim of terrorism which, it knows too well, is very cheap for the government to make. But it's not quite there. First, because the government is still presumed not to be out-and-out lying in these things unless (until...) proven otherwise, and second, because a statement like this from the military is more than an allegation, it is potentially an indication of some future action - if they say these individuals are returned to terrorism, I assume that this is a military statement that implies they might one day pick up a cell phone and have it explode in their ear, or suddenly be blown up by a missile, shot by a drone, etc. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I added the following additional reference to the article on Moheb Ullah Borekzai. Scholars at Seton Hall University have written about a dozen papers analyzing in detail what the DoD has claimed about the Guantanamo captives. This is one of the papers that analyzes the “recidivism” claim. It reproduces the 2009 DIA report that names Borekzai as an appendix. Appendix G is a table listing the ID numbers of former captives alleged to have been recidivists, and it included ISN 546 -- Borekzai`s ID number. Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Mark P. Denbeaux (2009-06-05). "Revisionist Recidivism: An analysis of the Government's representations of alleged "recidivism" of the Guantanamo detainees" (PDF). Seton Hall University. p. 35. Retrieved 2012-07-31. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead= ignored (help)

Sources are good, more are better, and I appreciate your hard work. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree sources are good but this one again does not support the infobox claim. Did anybody actually read the source? The funny thing is this scholarly source trashes the DoD claim.

Moheb Ullah Borekzai's name appears only in the original DIA "fact sheet" list as "suspected" with an definition what "suspected" could mean.

For me it is beyond comprehension how any reasonable person could think that this source would verify "DoD claims Moheb Ullah Borekzai returned to supporting terrorism".

To resolve this i suggest to remove the infobox claim and to edit the given section accordingly. Add the DIA "suspect" him and to explain what they mean by "suspected". Gyrojeff (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest the comment above reflects a fundamental misunderstanding over how our policies are interpreted. The wikipedia articles on the individuals the DIA lists as suspected or confirmed recidivists should not characterize the alleged recidivism as an established fact. It should neutrally cover what third parties' comments on the claims. If third parties explicitly comment on the specific claim a particular individual was a recidivist, that should be mentioned in that individual's article. This article directs readers to an article that covers the recidivism claims. Coverage of criticisms of the claims belongs there. Including coverage of general criticism of the recidivism claims in an article on a specific individual lapses from the advice of the WP:COATRACK essay.

Gyrojeff writes, above, “...it is beyond comprehension how any reasonable person could think that this source would verify ‘DoD claims Moheb Ullah Borekzai returned to supporting terrorism’.” Gyrojeff seems to be calling for verification that Moheb Ullah Borekzai WAS a recidivist. Since the article attributes the claim to the DoD, I think all that needs to be verified is that the DoD made the claim.

The article already says “On May 27, 2009, the Defense Intelligence Agency published a ‘fact sheet’ listing Guantanamo captives who had ‘re-engaged in terrorism’. It stated that Mohibullah was suspected of ‘association with the Taliban’.” Immediately above Gyrojeff calls for the article to make clear he was merely suspected. I think it already said that he was merely suspected. Gyrojeff did not suggest this rewording on my talk page, or on the article's talk page, which seems to me to be a misuse of this noticeboard. Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gyrojeff's comments strongly echo those of User:Iqinn who was indefinitely blocked for unrepentant edit-warring, and who edit-warred over this exact same issue three years ago. I initiated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn. Iqinn already raised this issue here three years ago -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67#Rasul Kudayev. Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Your wall of words and stonewalling is not helpful. Let's assume: "DoD claims he “returned to supporting terrorism" would be verified in the given source without all the original research that you have performed. Than still this would violate BLP and NPOV as there are other sources that trash the claim. I have tried to resolve the issue with you on your talk page and here i have suggested a solution (remove this from the infobox and explain both views in NPOV in the relevant section.) This is a BLP violation, user Geo Swan objects to remove the violating text that he has added so i think this noticeboard is the right place for other people to get involved and to act. Gyrojeff (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here's the problem: as usual, it's the infobox itself. What does "status" mean? It sounds like GeoSwan is interpreting it as the status with the American government as a (former) captive; after all, it is literally "Template:Infobox War on Terror detainee". But Gyrojeff sees it as a general infobox about the man (and why not, it's titled with his name), so it should reflect the full range of sources (or if there's no room, none?) I'm thinking maybe it's time to kill the infobox, and let the article text speak for itself. Either that, or redesign it to clarify some things. Wnt (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Quest

Richard Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - - Censorship of Wikipedia Entry?

Richard Quest is a very well known public person. He is a high profile CNN presenter.

In 2008 Mr Quest was arrested in Central Park New York, (Redacted). He was in the park outside the hours of curfew for the park. The matter was reported in the mainstream media (but not CNN).

I believe this item of information to be in the public interest, and therefore not defamatory. Also, a critical defense to defamation is that the reported item be true, and this event clearly is true. Also, Mr. Quest is a public figure, therefore items such as this are allowed to be disseminated in respect of him.

On Tuesday 31 July, I edited the Wikipedia entry for Mr Quest, so that it includes this information. The new entry was done is a way which followed Wikipedia guidelines. It included a link to a reputable newspaper report of the incident.

However, soon after this, another user had removed the reference to Mr Quest's arrest.

I believe that not allowing this item to appear on Wikipedia amounts to censorship, and I question the motives of a person wishing to act in this way.

Clearly, CNN does not want this information appearing in relation to such a prominent figure in their organization. However, other prominent news organizations have been able to print this, including Australia's Sydney Morning Herald. Australia has well developed defamation laws, however the Sydney Morning Herald has been able to report this for the past 4 years.

If anyone else has an opinion on this I would welcome their thoughts.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleau (talk • contribs) 07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dleau, welcome to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (section)!

I note that this was already discussed on the talk page of the article back in May. I will quote some of what User:Bbb23 said there:

WP:BLPCRIME states that we should not include material in a BLP article about a crime the person may have committed unless the person has been convicted. Here, there is no indication that Quest was convicted of anything. In addition, the details reported by The Post and Huffington are more properly confined to tabloids, and not to Wikipedia (Huffington happily alludes to this stuff as "lurid details"). He was not arrested for any sexual offense or charged with any sexual offense. Thus, to insert those details is WP:COATRACK and a further BLP violation.

Put more simply, this is crap about a minor contretemps that occurred four years ago that is more noteworthy for the "lurid details" than for anything else. It negatively impacts a BLP, it has little or no relevance to his Wikipedia article, and it cannot be included.

The person asking about this on the article talk page seemingly agreed with Bbb23, and was happy to let the matter rest there. No-one else commenting on the article talk page disagreed. Do you disagree, and if so, why? Just a quick note, something not being defamatory (for example, because it is true) is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy. The policy does not exist just to stop Wikipedia or Wikipedians being sued for defamation.

I've also redacted part of your post here, as per that policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Richard Quest is a very well known public person. Really? I'd never heard of him.
2. this event clearly is true. An event can't be true. An account of it may or may not be true, but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
3. It included a link to a reputable newspaper report of the incident. No. It included a link to an article about the alleged incident in a newspaper that indeed is normally reputable, but the source of this particular article is partly unspecified, partly specified as the New York Post. The reputation of the New York Post is less than stellar.
4. I question the motives of a person wishing to act in this way. Oh, I quite often question Wikipedia editors' motives myself, but I avoid blurting out these questions. Please read WP:AGF. As for this person's reasons, they're specified as WP:BLPCRIME per talk. "Per talk" is Wikipedia-speak for "as explained in Talk:Richard Quest".

-- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes , well said Hoary - The Bio should be semi protected indefinately to stop this tittikating misdomenor detail from repeatedly being inserted. Youreallycan 09:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The cited "WP:BLPCRIME" actually says only to consider not reporting an accusation, and only for a person not well-known. That said, it's hard to argue for something that is so sketchily covered that that substance wasn't tested, the charges weren't filed, and the follow-up nonexistent. For all I know he merely needed to be persuaded out of reporting about the wrong thing. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to comments that Richard Quest's biography should not contain any details of his arrest in New York and possession of methamphetamine, I draw your attention to the wikipedia entry of Australian journalist Peter Lloyd. Peter Lloyd was arrested in Singapore for possession of a "small" amount of the drug "ice", which is methamphetamine. He was subsequently convicted in a Singapore court for such possession. This arrest and conviction is clearly indicated in Peter Lloyd's wikipedia page. Did Peter Lloyd do anything more serious than Richard Quest? One (Lloyd) was arrested in a country which has a very low tolerance towards drug possession (Singapore) with a "small" amount of methamphetamine, but because of that country's stance on drugs, this arrest must appear on his wikipedia entry. Another (Quest) is arrested in possession of the same thing (a "small" amount of methamphetamine) but since the charges relating to such possession are dropped pending his participation in a rehabilitation scheme, that fact must not appear on his wikipedia entry. To me, this unfair for Peter Lloyd. Also there is another more sinister issue involved here. Richard Quest is a highly paid reporter for a major news provider (CNN). Interestingly, I have not been able to find any mention of this issue on any CNN site. The fact that this is NOT widely reported, as required by wikipedia rules, stems from the very fact that the subject is a highly visible member of such major news organisation. Such news organisations are VERY concerned about their outward appearance, as they need to maintain a clean image to protect their massive advertising revenues. Their massive advertising revenues allow them to allocate substantial funds to maintaining such clean image. Wikipedia does have to be very careful in what it writes about living persons, however if such living person is a member of the very sector (news sector/media) that is charged with reporting such matters, and the organisation for which such living person works represents a major segment of news reportage, and chooses not to report any infarction by such person... reportage will be substantially diminished, and the test for wikipedia inclusion will not be met (that the matter be widely reported). The net result? Money caused the truth to be hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleau (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. And so precisely what was the crime for which Quest was convicted? And precisely what evidence can you adduce for this?
2. Richard Quest is a highly paid reporter for a major news provider (CNN). Got any evidence for the high pay? And how would it be relevant? Elsewhere, you say that the "news" (infotainment) industry opens the spigots of cash in order to whitewash its own (pardon the mixed metaphor).
3. The fact that this is NOT widely reported, as required by wikipedia rules, stems from the very fact that the subject is a highly visible member of such major news organisation. Wikipedia has no requirement for wide reporting of the conviction, just for reliable reporting. Got any? If not, could the lack of reporting conceivably be because there was no conviction, or because the mass media, silly though they certainly are, had less trivial things to think about? (Or if you're into conspiracies, there are always the "Illuminati", "Knights Templar" and so forth to blame it on.) Or even that there was no conviction?
4. Money caused the truth to be hidden. "The truth", again? Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

-- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prevent mention of arrests for crimes - in the case at point the issue becomes: "Was the arrest notable in the life of the person?" and "Is the arrest relevant in any way to the life of the person?". [37] is from The New York Times. I consider that newspaper to be a "newspaper of record" for such material, and is not a tabloid in any manner. It does not indicate a "lack of reporting." The NYT describes him as " a high-profile correspondent for CNN International, known for feature reports and profiles. CNN calls Mr. Quest, who is British, one of the network’s 'most instantly recognizable members.' " Thus his notability is pretty well-established per the NYT. The claim shold note if there was any conviction, but the arest is clearly notable and RS sourceable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) [38] Reuters indicates " New York judge ordered CNN reporter Richard Quest to undergo six months of counseling on Friday after Quest was arrested in Central Park for possession of a controlled substance, his lawyer said" which is clearly about as NPOV as one could wish. Collect (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is - even if you agree that is worthy of reporting - repeatedly users come along and red top the titillation into the bio - imo - its better to leave it out - (in reply to Dleau's comment about Australian journalist Peter Lloyd ...what is in other articles is not particularly relevant to this discussion, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and looking at that biography, that subject got ten months imprisonment, and has written a book about the experience, a much more noteworthy affair imo - Peter_Lloyd_(ABC_correspondent)#Drug_arrest) - so what is worthy of us reporting? The drug possession and the six months rehab - or the detail the he reportedly had a dildo in his car boot? - I could accept the detail below with two of the highest quality reporting sources, but as I say it would be difficult to maintain. Youreallycan 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In April 2008, Quest was stopped by police at 3:40am in Central Park, New York City, and after questioning, admitted to be in possession of a small quantity of a controlled substance: crystal methamphetamine. Quest agreed to undergo 6 months of drug counseling.

• - Update - content has been added - see - Richard_Quest#Central_Park_arrest - Youreallycan 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this section could be expanded to cover his personal life in general. Some quotes from [39][40] would be useful, in particular, "All I would say on the subject, besides the standard line that it was a highly regrettable incident, is that nothing is as it seems – and certainly not the way it was reported at the time." I think that it would substantially help to alleviate BLP concerns to further detail his comeback subsequent to the event (the article currently mentions Quest Means Business but we should mention more explicitly, as the Guardian points out, that this success followed the incident) Note that as per the first reference, and [41], and List of LGBT Jews, Quest's sexuality should also be mentioned in the article. Wnt (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

His sexuality seems irrelevant to the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

His sexuality is not only irrelevant, it is totally irrelevant to his notability entirely. Collect (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Editors keep re-adding him to List of LGBT Jews which I consider a violation of BLPCAT at a minimum. Other eyes welcomed. Collect (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The entry is cited. The citation is clear. If it is cited, in a reliable source, then it cannot fail BLP conditions. I can't be bothered to revert your deletion again. Once is enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits of this particular case, the statement "If it is cited, in a reliable source, then it cannot fail BLP conditions" is flat wrong. For all articles, but especially BLPs, verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion. CIreland (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is the kind of craziness we have going on with BLPs. We can include some news flap about a non-prosecution from a few sources, but we can't include mention that he's gay from a few sources. Now why not? Well, one explanation is because homosexuality is bad. We can't cite bad sources from the gay press, though we can cite sources that document other, very embarrassing things. We can't talk about homosexuality in the article, because that is too bad to tar him with, but we can talk about the arrest, citing only the most serious details that make him sound like he's some degenerate drug addict and leaving out the cute bits about the rope and sex toy (which are bad). And in this way, people who are very strict about BLP policy can, without saying bad things, make it clear that a well-known gay broadcaster is, indeed, of bad character. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh? Are you referring to a prosecuted case where a judge made a court order for 6 months of treatment? That is nknown as a "court result" and is not a "non-prosecution." And the claim in the Quest BLP is carefully stated in order not to imply any Wikipedia judgement at all, and no "lurid details" - which is what NPOV requires. The bit about including two issues which BLP/N has clearly stated need more than casual sources (sexual orientation and ethnicity/religion) including some relation to the notability of the person, is something where you appear to be on the minority at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Coates (politician)

Robert Coates (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Mr.Coats left behind top secret North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) documents 'War Orders' that was in his possession. The bar manager of Tiffany's brought the document to Military Police officer Sgt. Faubert's attention, who also wrote the unusual incident report." Aside from misspellings and poor writing, this is unsourced, possibly defamatory and most likely false. I was in Lahr at the time. I am a broadcast journalist and I covered the story of Bob Coates and Tiffany's for CBC Radio Montreal. I followed the mini-scandal while it developed and never once saw any reference to, nor heard any speculation about, any documents that Coates "left behind." Nor have I been able to come up with any independent source for this piece of information (that wasn't just copy/pasted from Wikipedia). It doesn't make any sense anyway. Who would bring confidential papers with him to a strip bar... and leave them behind? The "Sgt. Faubert" mentioned in the article lacks a surname. Who was the manager of Tiffany's that was cited? This article in the Montreal Gazette is how I remember the Coates scandal: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19850214&id=XTcjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tqUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1630,1659504 Coates resigned because he placed himself in a compromising situation, not because he left some supposed documents in a strip bar. Regards, Bill Peterson in Berlin (reply to (Redacted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.76.28 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for raising this issue. As a first step, I've removed the currently unsourced information about the scandal in the article. Later I will look into re-expanding the article based on the Montreal Gazette source, and maybe one or two others. The article is woefully lacking references at the moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) - LOL - Hi Bill = thanks for the report - Article is in need of some inline citations. Currently the disputed content is united and contensious - if an interested user could look at bringing the bio a bit more wiki policy compliant and remove the contensious uncited. Youreallycan 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also redacted your email address from this page, as it's not a good idea to post such things here. I'm also a bit puzzled why your email address would contain the surname of the person you're commenting on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• We can thank some person in Ottowa for that. Faubert is a surname, by the way. And the several Gazette articles confirm that the nightclub was named Tiffany's. Be aware when rewriting this article that the Gazette articles report as fact some things that Coates then sued the Ottawa Citizen over for libel. Be careful what material you use, and read the press coverage from later that year and the years following. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, noted. I did include the "and maybe one or two others" clause when I saw that all might not be exactly as it seemed :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hughes (film producer)

Eric Hughes (film producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is not legitimate to be on wikipedia. This appears to be a vanity article. There are little to no third party sources. This has happened before when he used the name Eric B. Hughes and he was deleted because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboxboombox (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hughes (film producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomboxboombox (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And it was created by a single purpose account with named NYK1968. Hughes, according to his IMDB page, was born in '68. He admits to being the publicist for the film company. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metre individual medley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ye Shiwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Leonard called an exceptional performance by Chinese swimmer, Ye Shiwen, "disturbing" and drew parallels with Michelle Smith, who was banned for drug use. These suggestions were widely reported in the media. 1,2,3

1. Is there a way to report this without infringing WP:BLP?
2. Is WP:BLP more restrictive then standard libel laws as this issue was reported in the media in a suitably qualified manner? Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't have a section on this all to itself, as we currently have at Ye Shiwen#Controversy. (Separating anything even remotely disagreed about off from its proper context and lumping it all into sections marked "controversy", or "legal issues", or similar is a Wikipedia disease that needs to be combatted.) Ye Shiwen#2012 Summer Olympics, as a subheading of the career section, would seem to be a far better way to handle this. Your third source there, Thompson 2012, gives enough material to flesh out this person's earlier career in a subsection prior to that. Uncle G (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with everyone's favorite uncle. I shortened it a bit and moved it into the subsection as suggested. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was actually in the middle of doing the same thing and edit conflicted with you. ☺ I noticed that the article had been reduced to semi-protection and decided to have a go. I held off when it was fully protected. I haven't yet used Thompson 2012, linked to above, but I've expanded somewhat on the biography of the subject before this year. It's a rare event to find myself working on a sourced biography of a 16-year-old. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The answer to "Is WP:BLP more restrictive then standard libel laws...?" is yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV

The section on marriages, divorces and children is rife with references which are from tabloid newspapers and therefore may not be projecting an entirely neutral perspective. This can be further clarified in a manner which is not defamatory

The section on Nizari Ismaili Imamat has a paragraph on the Aga Khan's views on alcohol. Firstly, the paragraph doesn't entail in any way to the section on Nizar Ismaili Imamat. Secondly, a reference to his grandfather and his views on alcohol are entirely irrelevant to the point of view under discussion (the article is on on Aga Khan IV not III)

The section on Divine nature of the Aga Khan may not be relevant to an encyclopedia article. If written in standards of an encyclopedia, referenced understanding of modern scholars of tradition Ismaili view on the Imamat should be discussed, rather that a seemingly misrepresentation of Ismaili sources suited to an interpretation of people who do not understand each's significance. Finally, if its necessary that Aga Khan IV's own views must be incorporated since this article primarily refers to his biography

On the personal finances and income generation from the community again a gross misrepresentation of facts have taken place. The Aga Khan's views may be helpful here to clarify the situation which are on record

Eagle's mount (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

Catherine D Chatterley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

Special:FeedbackDashboard/42864

Spearhead's placed a BLP on the dashboard, link's here. I can't remove this, so I'm requesting it be removed. Thanks "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Candy Lightner

Candy Lightner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SPA user talk:CDoddridge keeps adding a great deal of essaylike content at Candy Lightner, as well as removing all sources and damaging the article structure. I am not going to revert this again, but the article is wounded at the moment. I expect to wait until this individual wanders off to damage some other article before working on the Lightner article any further. Whatever any interested editor decides to do, please don't come to my talk page. I am unfriendly. The article talk page will suffice, I am sure.User talk:Unfriend12 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am not notifying the the editor as hesheit has instructed me to stay off hiserits talk page.User talk:Unfriend12 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, rereading the message on my talk page "Get off my page and quit making changes. Go find your own accomplishments and quit messing with mine. Candace Lightner" - it seems this anon person is claiming to *BE* the subject, editing her own article. FYI only. User talk:Unfriend12 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The altered version is unwikified and frankly a complete mess. It also contains a huge amount of POV language, which isn't really surprising as it's copied from the bio on her Facebook page. Reverted, semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "Quotes" section which was entirely unreferenced. Ditch ∝ 04:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Youvan

Douglas Youvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some experienced editors please take a look at this article and the talk page? There seems to be a very slow back-and-forth discussion using words like libel, and that negative aspects of the article are "hurting" fundraising efforts. With unsigned comments, and discussion formatted in such a way as I am unsure who is responding to what point, it's all rather beyond me. Full disclosure: I nom'd the article for deletion due to NOTE and PROF, and even added a /ref after the fact provided by a person commenting on the woefully sparse AFD discussion. But I've also been told in that same discussion that one factor that makes this person notable (H-index) cannot (or should not) be used as a reference, which is...well...just beyond my experience. The article and its editing history can be easily seen for what it is...and the talk page is relatively short. The AFD discussion is obviously linked from there as well. So anyone willing to take a look should easily find what they need. I don't feel the need to link to a bunch of diffs here...it's all there in short form...but someone more experienced might take a look , b/c it's a little beyond me, and there are some "legal" insinuations being tossed about. Thanks, Ditch ∝ 04:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article is currently under discussion at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Youvan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 05:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Marion Kozak

Marion Kozak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Kozak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bio created today by User:IZAK - the bio has previously (not this one but historic versions) been deleted twice. Although she is mentioned in articles I don't think she is notable for anything specific - the mother of two notable people and the wife of a notable person and coming from a Polish town were atrocities were committed (this appears coat-racked onto her life story) - its a life story about her not the atrocity? She was seven or eight when she emigrated/fled to Belgium) all seem to be added in bloating the fact that there is nothing actually notable about her - just my first thought on reading the article - could someone else have a look and see what you think - there are also a few opinionated comments/flourishes in the reading also and the citations with multiple uses need sorting out to see the wood from the trees - thanks - Youreallycan 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• What has - as reported in the Daily Mail. Israel has awarded over 6,000 Righteous among the Nations awards to Poles more than to any other.... got to do with Marion Kosak? That she is Polish? The see also section also seems unduly focused to me for a biography Marion_Kozak#See_also - Update - now at WP:AFD - link is at the top of this report - Youreallycan 04:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

Stephen M. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sex.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been added to this BLP by UserScottjduffy, (his first two edits since eighteen months) and copy pasted to the Sex.com article -

Since then, Cohen has continued to avoid paying the $67 million judgement, and claims poverty. Courts have found in Kremen's favor several times since 2006, with evidence that seven individuals and twelve companies were used to help Cohen hide the money, including his brother, his daughter, his ex-wife and also his former lawyer. A court case against his brother is ongoing.

• It is supported by this primary - v Michael Joseph Cohen|publisher=Google Scholar|date=2012-07-17|accessdate=2012-08-01 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3860426389785992086&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|title=Kremen v Michael Joseph Cohen|publisher=Google Scholar|date=2012-07-17|accessdate=2012-08-01 - According to WP:BLPPRIMARY primary sources, which can be used to provide extra background, but should not be used on their own to source claims, is this source compliant with en wikipedia BLP policy for contentious content additions? - Youreallycan 06:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  It's a primary source to the California court system so it is reliable and, while not preferred, allowable. Youreallycan, you need to take a step away from this article as you have in the past been unable to accurately discern (particularly on this page) what is and is not allowable on the biography of a living person for which they are known not because they are famous but because the are infamous.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Its not a recommended source at all for a content addition to a bio of a living person. - Please don't replace it and please don;t continue to comment about me rather that the issue. Youreallycan 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  You are the issue though. Because you cannot seem to accept any changes to this page that point out the subject is of ill repute. A judicial order is a reliable source. It is compliant with BLPPRIMARY, despite whatever you may think.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Actually - you are the issue - have you read WP:BLPPRIMARY ? - Youreallycan 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  It says to...to support assertions about a living person". I do not see it as an assertion in this case, so the content should be allowed. The content added is simply a summarization of the content of the document which appears to be relevant and perhaps useful to the article at hand.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thats right - - "exercise caution" and "not to use court records" - Youreallycan 00:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  It says more than "[do] not...use court records", though. It adds "to support assertions about a living person". I don't see any assertions in the content

  Since then, Cohen has continued to avoid paying the $67 million judgement, and claims poverty. Courts have found in Kremen's favor several times since 2006, with evidence that seven individuals and twelve companies were used to help Cohen hide the money, including his brother, his daughter, his ex-wife and also his former lawyer. A court case against his brother is ongoing.

  that is an assertion regarding Cohen, certainly not one we have already sourced.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  I have now found secondary sources that report on this content, so the judicial order is not needed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in detail or at the specific allegations, but YRC is right about BLPPRIMARY:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ...

The reason we require reliable secondary sources is to make sure Wikipedians don't collect negative material from courts that no one else deems worthy of publication (e.g. allegations made during a divorce, and similar). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the article the court document (as a primary source) was being used to support the fact that the court case is effectively still ongoing. That the wording in it RE Cohen is particularly unflattering is really a sideline. A primary source being used to support the fact that a legal jurisdiction is still dealing with the subject, when the entire reason the subject has an article (and also the reason sex.com has one) is because of the subjects criminal actions. The article has plenty of secondary sources on his criminality, this particular aspect of his criminality (Avoiding the judgement/hiding assets) was at the time (AGF on the part of the editor who added it) the best source. Removing it wouldnt change the tone of the article or the depiction of the subject, thankfully Ryulong has found better sources to effectively make the above irrelevant - but that should not prevent Wikipedia from reporting in an article 'X is a criminal (supported by multiple secondary sources) X is still in court (supported by primary source)'. While the argument that it should be removed due to identifying info on the subject (address etc) is a valid concern, no such info was included in the source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Also, I thought that the nature of the content (made by the judge in the case) would have made it a suitable source, as the judge is meant to be impartial.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Provided there are no other issues with it (e.g. UNDUE, etc) then a filing by the court can reasonably be used as a source to support assertions about the proceeding themselves. — Coren ^(talk) 12:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats a matter of opinion - show me the policy/guideline that supports your claim please? - We are here to report what other reliable sources have reported about notable issues - if no one has reported then its not our job to report either - Youreallycan 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources have already decided the sex.com & Cohen shenanigans is a notable issue. What you now seem to be arguing is that specific aspects of the ongoing legal issues surrounding it, are not notable because that specific aspect has not been commented on by secondary sources. (Even though in the above example it has) That seems to be a distortion of how notability is applied. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Even if it were a matter of "opinion", YRC, it would then also be a normal content dispute. Edit warring over it is problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 17:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wording changed per NPOV. Other individuals identified (wife etc.) did not need to be here - the BLP is about the single person. Collect (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason Russell

Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This report is regarding Jason Russell, a low-notability filmmaker whose best claim to notability appears to be involvement in the Kony 2012 project. Russell momentarily made tabloid headlines just subsequent to around the time the Kony film went viral, when he had a meltdown of some sort and got himself arrested for some type (reports vary) of public lewd behavior. Because the lewdness apparently involved public nudity, the story was picked up by TMZ.

The BLP problem we have is the clear guidance given by WP:NPF. This sort of thing is not Wikipedia-worthy material in the case of a low-notability person.

People who are relatively unknown [edit]

Policy shortcut: WP:NPF

Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

(emphasis from the original)

We can find sufficient notability for Russell's article in his filmmaking - the Kony 2012 project was a fairly big deal that reached many, many eyeballs around the world. We do NOT find Wikipedia-worthy notability in being picked up by the police for public nudity, unless the person is an A-list celebrity or a national-level politician. Therefore, it is clearly not compliant with our BLP policy to include this material in the article.

Other editors have proposed compromise solutions that include removing mention of the nudity and only mentioning the breakdown. The problem with that is, again, notability. We don't mention being picked up by the police in any BLP, unless it is an A-list public figure (which have different standards).

This matter has been brought to N/BLP two times in the past, and it appears to have been a split - having been decided one way on the first occasion and (maybe) another way the second time (it's hard to tell from looking at the discussion, I don't see where there was an especially solid consensus). We need a solid decision here to stave off the persistent recurring edit-warring that has plagued this article for much of its history. Belchfire-TALK 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to include a sentence or two mention of the incident, but I feel that, per WP:BLP, we should be focusing on using the strongest sourcing, which is the official police report on the incident, considering that the official report shows that a lot of the sensationalized media on the incident is incorrect and, often, outright fallacious. Silverseren^C 08:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is some wish to make Wikipedia into the National Enquirer on this person. The incident occurred - but that does not me we make it into a big deal using the most senstional accusations around. Collect (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been explained to Silver seren and Collect many times but for some reason they are using the same arguments. I don't want to use sensational media/accusations. The nudity is a proven fact from several videos that has many reliable news sources that reported that. There's nothing sensational about it. Regarding the police statement, that should be included, however it keeps getting removed. The police statement is not sensational. Since the incident needs to be mentioned, we are not doing the reader justice by giving them an incomplete overview of what happened. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, your argument is easily disposed of in the following way:

1. Reliable sourcing is the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not a guarantee. See WP:BIT.
2. As is stressed repeatedly throughout our guidelines and policies, WP:BLP is an overriding concern.
3. Arriving at WP:NPF, when the word "ONLY" is bolded, this should be seen as an imperative.

In short, Russell's article must be limited to a biographical sketch plus an exposition of the reasons we have an article on him. Because the TMZ report doesn't establish his notability, on its own, it's not fair game and in fact is specifically disallowed. It matters not that the incident is an embarrassment (although it must be observed by editors that we are not here to embarrass him); the incident simply doesn't rise to meet our notability guidelines, and the pre-existence of Russell's article cannot be allowed help it rise further. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The meltdown is relevant to his notability so you haven't disposed of anything. His meltdown has reached the stage of being a meme. We're not reporting his meltdown through the eyes of TMZ either. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. That really doesn't work. As I explained before, the meltdown would not, by itself, create his notability. WP:NPF draws a circle of exclusion around his notable film work and from there we have to observe the Presumption in Favor of Privacy. If having a public meltdown would not, by itself, merit an article about him (it doesn't), we can't add it to his existing article. It's just gossip cruft, i.e. tabloid journalism. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't create his notability, it adds to it. It's not tabloid journalism. There was tabloid journalism in some reports, however we can easily ignore those. There's plenty of respectable news sources to use. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Chase Daniels

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.

---

Wrong Chase Daniels.

The Chase Daniels listed as someone from Kentucky is erroneous. The Chase Daniels from Kentucky is female and her real name is Tamaro Tatum (Chase Daniels was her radio name ). Also, she has had a more prestigious career, having won broadcasting awards, worked at more top-rated and diverse formats and has not only worked in Atlanta but also on the national level at XM (now SiriusXM). She also retired from radio in 2008.

The Chase Daniels listed on this site is from Jacksonville, FL, and has only worked in Florida and Atlanta.

The Chase Daniels from Kentucky had a Wiki page but it must have been erased and taken over by the other Chase Daniels from Florida ...yet it is still linked to the Kentucky page.

Please correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.150.53 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Chavis Carter

Chavis Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Concerning the Death of Chavis Carter

Hi. I'm posting this here to seek guidance on the inclusion of this article - although the guy is actually dead, apparently from a suicide while in a police vehicle, there are concerns on the BLP policy about the inclusion, since it's concerning a very recent death, and there is something about not including material like this, to prevent distress to relatives, etc. I am not quite sure about a way round this, but in my own opinion, the material is worthy of CSD, although not entirely sure how. Any thoughts or suggestions welcome.  BarkingFish  19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As currently written, I do not see a BLP concern. The subject may not pass notability barriers, depending on how much coverage of this there is, and what the fallout is, but if he does pass such barriers, then the level of detail thus far included would be virtually mandated in order for the article to make sense. Additionally, since the family themselves are commenting on the subject, the "living relatives" provision is weakened imo. At most the alleged crimes could be removed, and still say while he was arrested for unspecified issues or something, but cannabis possesion is not so outrageously derogatory as to cause a BLP issue for a dead person imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Todd Palin

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.

---

Todd Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an edit war going on right now about an alleged extramarital affair, which is already shaping up to be a prime candidate for WP:LAME. There are obviously plenty of people watching the article already, but something tells me it could use more. I'm suspicious of the quality of the sources used to advance this claim. I'm equally suspicious that some of the editors who are continuing to revert this addition have shown their biases before.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested, see WP:RPP.--ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

We have a BLP problem and an edit war on this article. Wmbowersatty (talk · contribs), a new editor, is trying to turn the article into a promotional piece claiming personal knowledge of the subject. I've reverted twice (the second time after trimming the article and adding references), and one other editor reverted. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingo Harr

I recently removed a posting on the biography of Ingo Haar [42] that is a falsehood and in plain English a blatant POV push. The false posting was restored again by another user who could very well be a sock. Users over in German Wikipedia may be able to help us to verify the information in this biography. I really want to avoid an edit war and request your review of this matter. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

John Sullivan: serious BLP issue

Hello, I would like to bring editors' attention to a serious issue in the article for John Sullivan (Oklahoma). Information has been added to this article that appears to violate Wikipedia's guidelines for biographical articles. Specifically, a section has been created titled "Criminal record", which appears in the contents list of the article. The section details allegations made about the arrest record of the Representative, made by a former opponent. It also includes information published by the media regarding his arrest record. While I understand that his arrest record is notable because it was subject to media attention during his campaigns in 2004 and onwards, after his opponent made statements about it, however I do not think that 20-year-old arrests should require their own section in his biographical article. Nor do I think that the details of each arrest are necessary here. I see that WP:BLPCRIME notes that for "relatively unknown" people criminal acts should only be included if there was a conviction, should not a similar guideline apply for more well-known individuals if the events were a long time ago, and only notable because of allegations by a political opponent? In this case, the Representative was never convicted of a crime, so surely the section should not be called "Criminal record". At the least, I think it would help to move this information out of the "Personal life" section and remove or change the section heading. I've brought this issue here, rather than removing or changing the information, since I work for Representative Sullivan. In the interests of openness, I have also placed a similar message on the article's "Talk" page. I would appreciate if editors here could provide a unbiased review of this section and make such changes as are necessary. Thank you in advance. --EdwardDC (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the information which did not have footnotes. While I do not think the information is super relevant or important to the article, I don't think it is a BLP issue, WP:WELLKNOWN clearly applies, but the arrests are documented. Additionally they are for very minor offenses, which is identified in the text, so its not like we are damaging his reputation. (The fact that they are so minor, however may be sufficient to say that they are irrelevant and may be removed, but that is not a BLP issue) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On further review, one of the arrests is for assault of a police officer, which is more major, but it is referenced. However it was also as a minor. I look forward to others input here to see how the various policies interact Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Looking at this profile concerning the current election from the Washington Times, much as I would like to say this sort of thing ought to go, it appears to continue to be of current concern. Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not actully go into the sources, just what was in the article. But if the article is true and these minor (and minor!) offenses played in the press at the time and affected the election then they should be included, but probably only under the election discussion itself and how the charges impacted the election rather than being called out in a special section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone commenting here so far. If I may, I'd like to clarify a bit more why I see this as a BLP issue. First of all, although the reporting from 2004 (when this was brought up by Representative Sullivan's opponent) characterized all of the incidents as "arrests", the Congressman's attorneys, local sheriff and local chief of police confirmed to him that those were not classified as arrests. In the case of the assault and battery case, no charges were ever brought. I am not aware of any reporting about this, but nor is there much in the public record about it to begin with.

As far as I am aware, the arrest record has not been raised in any recent articles that would show it is a relevant issue to the public. The Washington Times profile linked to by Mangoe is new to me, but seems to rely on earlier reporting which mischaracterized tickets as arrests and looks to be based on an older profile (see this Townhall one, last updated 2010), likely just updated for 2012 with no correction or removal of old information.

In any case, I agree with The Red Pen of Doom that this information really should belong with the discussion of his election campaigns and not in the section discussing his personal life. Thank you. --EdwardDC (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to unwatch this page and noticed this thread. Witness Lyman Hoffman, wherein someone decided that a conviction for drunken driving was "more encyclopedic" than the fact that he's currently among the five longest-serving members in the history of the Alaska Legislature. The user who added that information appears to have added similar information regarding a number of other politicians. In Hoffman's instance, there was a conviction (and while an incumbent officeholder), and this was reported by a RS (radio station KINY's news department). Still, I find it undue weight, but that will probably depend upon me to do something about it, along with the hundreds of other articles needing attention and languishing in the queue.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Way to resolve BLP issue privately?

I have encountered a problem regarding a BLP, but it is very sensitive and I would rather not cause a Streisand effect. Where can I resolve this? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:OTRS is the best way for such problems. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Email a trusted admin; email the WP:OVERSIGHT team; or email via Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), as appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you can close this now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

Was, when quite young, baptised in an LDS church, and the mateer is so noted in his BLP. Body text:

Rubio's family was Roman Catholic, but from age 8 to age 11, he and his family attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while they lived in Las Vegas

Which is a reasonable weight for discussion of his religious background. One editor now inists on adding to the infobox "formerly Mormon" as "religion." I consider this UNDUE as it presents far greater weight to the reigion of a youth attending a church with his family than is reasonably warranted, and that infoboxes are ill-used for any contentious claims in the best of times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Infoboxes are spectacularly bad at conveying any sort of nuance. It should remain in the article body and not in the infobox. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the phrase "formerly Mormon" may be strictly true, when placed baldly like that in the infobox, what it implies is actually contrary to fact - so much and so obviously so that one might legitimately question the motivation of any editor advocating for inclusion. CIreland (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Missy Franklin

The details about her 2012 Olympics wins do not seem to be correct in the first paragraph - section 2.4 (2012 Summer Olympic Games)