Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 09:09, 25 November 2012 (Robot: Archiving 13 threads (older than 5d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive165, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive164.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    Subhasree Ganguly

    Subhasree Ganguly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Someone is adding a website link in external link and website infobox parameter of Subhasree Ganguly, but I feel that is just a fan's site. I have not reverted their recent edit. Any opinion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Titodutta. I've had a look at the page, but it is not at all clear what edit you are talking about. Could you provide diffs? Formerip (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for confusion! Actually an image related edit warring started after that! Here is an edit diff. I think this is a fan site and is not official website and thus should not be in infobox's website parameter, opinion please! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any suggestion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you have a look at the website link now? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am another editor who has removed the repeatedly inserted link. The page has a big banner " Subhasree Ganguly' Fan Club" and no indication it is the official site of the individual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonio Seccareccia

    Antonio Seccareccia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    He is a music student with no commercially released recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.244.96 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The BLP article is now at AfD. FWIW, I found a fair amount on an identically named deceased person who was probably a notable Italian poet. I've created a draft at User:JFHJr/Antonio Seccareccia. Once the BLP autobiography is deleted, the draft on the deceased poet can take its place; that should end most if not all BLP concerns for the namespace. JFHJr (㊟) 17:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anand Jon Alexander

    I am an attorney that currently represents Anand Jon Alexander with respect to criminal charges currently pending in New York State Supreme Court. I have contacted your company previously on October 15, 2012 via email but to date have still not received a response not have the factual errors been corrected.

    There are several significant factual errors in Mr. Alexander's profile posted on wikipedia ( Anand Jon) that we would like to bring your attention to, and urge you to make the appropriate changes immediately as Mr. Alexander will soon be going to trial and it is important that all information available be as accurate as possible.

    Your website indicates that Mr. Alexander also faces charges in Texas and Massachusetts in addition to the LA and NY prosecutions. That is incorrect and there are not, nor have there ever been, charges in any jurisdiction in Massachusetts.

    As to the complainants, not all of the complainants at issue were aspiring models and many had personal and/or professional relationships with Mr. Alexander. While the wikipedia profile states that the defense in Los Angeles was that "the women and children were better because he did not hire them" this is incorrect and that was not his defense, nor were any of the complainants "children" as the profile alludes. In fact, many of the women complaining admitted to dating Mr. Alexander but in hindsight regretted their choices or felt that they had been taken advantage of. At least one complainant in LA stated under oath that she did not feel she had been raped and only felt that way after speaking to the LA District Attorney's Office.

    The profile also indicates that Mr. Alexander will be extradited to New York. Mr. Alexander was brought to New York, at his own request and only after repeated requests, to address the charges in January 2010. While initially there were twelve complainants in New York, several of whom were also complainants in LA, three of those complainants charges have already been dismissed in their entirety. In May 2012 the District Attorney's Office further dismissed many counts of the indictment and indicated in June, 2012 that they were not sure how many complainants would actually be brought to testify at trial. Presently, only 25 counts of the indictment still remain after the NY DA's office also dropped every charge alleging "drugging" on the basis that there was no evidence to sustain the charge.

    The profile also inaccurately states that Mr. Alexander was convicted of "16 out of 23 counts of sexual abuse; charges including the forcible rape of seven women and girls.". We ask you to please clarify this immediately as Mr. Alexander was not convicted of any charge related to a "child" nor the forcible rape of 7 women. The one and only "rape conviction" in California, as with almost every single charge, was "deadlocked" in a hung jury for over nine days, no assault related findings and no corroborating witnesses to any "crime." The matter is currently under appeal.

    While the profile correctly states that Mr. Alexander went on to fire his attorneys and represented himself towards the latter part of his case, the decision was primarily discovering that his own attorney had secretly applied for a job with, and in fact became a paid employee of, the LA District Attorney's office who was prosecuting the case. Clearly this was a significant conflict of interest which was not properly disclosed to the Court or to Mr. Alexander.

    We ask that you please clarify and update Mr. Alexander's page immediately. Mr. Alexander's New York trial is set to begin in November and is expected to receive media attention and therefore it is incredibly important that the press and public receive accurate information which could influence his trial and public perception (and wikipedia is often where many people initially obtain their information). We remain confident that following the trial and appeal Mr. Alexander will be found innocent of all charges and finally released from his wrongful incarceration and we look forward to presenting evidence on his behalf at trial to show just how poorly this case was originally handled.

    If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 917.656.6911 or via email and I would be happy to provide you with affidavits and court documents which will fully support every assertion we are seeking wikipedia correct. Thank you so much for your time and attention.

    Best regards,

    Kimberly Summers, Esq.
    SUMMERS & SCHNEIDER, P.C.
    555 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor
    New York, New York 10017
    (t) 212.918.0690
    (c) 917.656.6911
    (f) 646.490.2175

    www.SummersAndSchneider.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.120.168 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made a first pass at removing some clearly inappropriate/improperly sourced and unclear content and second pass adding some sourcing and matching our content to sources. I have not fully read the entire statement above, and I would still consider the content in the article a draft that needs to be carefully proofed. A second or third pair of eyes would be good.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed more "stuff" from the BLP - person appears only marginally notable other than a TV appearance and the arrest. Collect (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gold Bar Reporter and Aaron Reardon

    There is a negative claim in The Gold Bar Reporter about Aaron Reardon, which is sourced to the "citizen journalism" website itself. This should be cited from a more mainstream/reliable source or deleted IMO. I don't have much time or inclination to deal with this but I found [1] which might help. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Commented out in that article, though I likely could have simply deleted it entirely. Collect (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Allan Donald

    Allan Donald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi guys.

    Allan Donald's Wiki page only states that he is a former bowler, but he is the bowling coach for the SA cricket team now. I would have edited the article myself, but cannot find decent material to link it to. Which is frustrating, because we know that he is our bowling coach! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Fine (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify claims, especially regarding living people. GiantSnowman 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This should probably do it Double Fine, article from when he got the job last year. Followed by this which confirms he is still there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections

    This page is becoming a dumping ground of BLP violations galore. I have removed the Steve King BLP/Synthesis of material once already and the Jim Buchy as well. These two individuals have not been involved in any controversy. King was asked about Todd Akin's comments and this article is implying that he defended them. Which is absolutely not the case. The Buchy section is sourced to TP and Rachel Maddow and is a complete non-controversy. That this article exists at all is amazing as it is nothing more than an WP:ATTACK page. This kind of crap really needs to stop. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was created based off of this AfD that resulted in merge. Multiple editors suggested that an article that integrated all the rape and pregnancy comments into one single page would be useful and the closing admin allowed for it in their closing statement. That said, these comments had clear national effects, as documented in the article. Nothing has been added which isn’t sourced and nothing has been added that doesn’t meet the scope of the article. WP:CENSOR. If the article is a problem, I suggest the editor take it to WP:AfD again and get the article removed. Casprings (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The present article is a new Article, proposed in the middle of the AfD (by Casprings) of a different Article. The AfD did NOT demand or in any way require its erection; consensus was that the article addressed in the AfD, a standalone article solely on the strange comments of Todd Akin, could not exist and should be deleted, its sourced content going as far as WP:UNDUE would allow to his campaign article, the National Democrat's War of Women strategy page, and to Todd Akin. Casprings also wanted to start a new article (the current one) on the alleged rape "theme" of Republicans in the 2012 elections, and merge content from the (no longer existing) Akin controversy article into this one, as well as the other existing targets. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the article is a problem, I suggest the editor take it to WP:AfD again and get the article removed." - Disagree. Only a few days ago the AFD consensus you describe resulted in approval for that article; putting it for AFD again is plain disruptive. This looks like forum shopping. If he feels consensus can change, I'd advise Arzel to wait a year before retrying, so that we can see things in a cooler light. --Cyclopiatalk 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all forum shopping; there has never been an AfD on this article. The AfD referred to was on a different article, and this new article merges content from the deleted Richard Mourdock controversy article and the deleted Todd Akin controversy article. There would be a strong Speedy Delete argument if that is all it did, and finding LEGITIMATE nationally-important rape controversies that demonstrate a real trend and commonality is essential to this articles future non-deletion. I don't think editors will find any that fit the bill, and manufacturing them to avoid AfD or SD is certainly a WP:BLP violation, but have no problem with giving editor/advocates a week to give it a try before AfD-ing.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that the article need be deleted, only that it not become a dumping ground for attacking living people, which is exactly what it is becoming. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tend to say that it is a new article, and might be given a short time to develop (though I heartily endorse your observation that it is a crap magnet, and designed as such). WP:BLP should be applied, and if editors prove you and I right, that such an new article is WPOR, or reverts to being an excuse for re-posting legitimately deleted articles, then that IS an argument for deletion. Currently reading what is being posted, not impressed with its WP:BLP, WP:RS or WP:NPOV compliance. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections - because we are committed to neutrality, and this can never be neutral.--Scott Mac 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidharth Kaul

    This article is written just to gain the popularity. This person does not meet the standard of notability. Publication in journals is not enough to achieve notability. This article should be DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaIndia (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajni Kaul

    This article is written just to gain the popularity. This person does not meet the standard of notability. Publication in journals is not enough to achieve notability. This article should be DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaIndia (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    comics.org

    I'm concerned about an apparent user-generated database at Grand Comics Database being used as an RS for living persons; please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Grand_Comics_Database. Shaz0t (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirmal Baba

    The alternative versions on either side of that diff exhibit the core of the dispute here. This is a BLP that is either wholly negative but at least honestly sourced, or wholly positive but with deceptive citations that have falsified titles. The conflict over the citation titles is ongoing, but there's more to this than just that. There are large differences in content, too. Additionally, things will have scrolled off AN/I by the time that the conflict almost inevitably starts up again. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Marco Rubio

    [2] uses Yahoo as a source for a contentious opinion that links Rubio to creationism.

    The problem is that the actual source is TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com) which is clearly shown in the by-line. The source further is clearly an opinion column.

    The claims that Rubio is a creationist, or favours creationism, or is a fellow-traveler of creationists, are contentious. Thus strong sourcing is needed. I aver that TPM is not such a source, nor is Rubio's comment on the "age of the Earth" such a quote as allows the linkage (noting that the quote then continues to say that it is not important to economics just how old the Earth is - making crystal clear that Rubio does not consider it an important topic in the first place). Repeatedly inserting such claims is violative of BLP as well -- [3] shows the first attempt to use this "source", and note thaytt I had no objection to including the full GQ quote per [4] showing actual context from that source. What I do find a violation is this clear new attempt to paint a person with a brush which he does not even seem to justify - Rubio is a Roman Catholic, and, last I looked, theology makes for bad politics when trying to paint anyone with the "creationist" brush. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, it seems the controversy is all over the place: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Not all of these are necessarily RS, but evidence of a notable controversy where "creationism" is cited is clear. I agree that we should include the full quote with context, ask for good sources and avoid brushing him as a creationist. --Cyclopiatalk 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    * Quote from source =

    Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

    When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

    “I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

    “Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”
    • Quote from source =

      Rubio's comments to GQ were unsurprising when compared with Rubio's rhetoric on creationism in the past. Facing creationist protests, the Florida Board of Education wrestled with curriculum standards in 2008 that accepted evolution as scientifically sound. Eventually, the board ruled that evolution should be taught, but only as a "scientific theory." It was a compromise decision that drew criticism from the scientific community who said it underplayed evolution's acceptance as the basis for biological science and criticism from creationists worried that it didn't go far enough to allow their theories about the creation of the world into the mix. Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists.

    My opinion: That Rubio made statements about the age of the earth isn't seriously questioned. Quotes of his statements are easily found in other reliable sources, like CNN and UPI. The issue appears to be how the proposed content is using the source. The source cited doesn't mention anything about Rubio 'taking the side of creationists', and does not show he is engaging in the Florida Board of Ed debates. Either better sourcing needs to be found for the claims made in the proposed content, or the proposed content should be made to better reflect the sources. Zad68 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Strikeout comment based on wrong source. Zad68 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The source I used [10] in my edit to Marco Rubio contains the sentence: "Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists." It is then a mystery to me how someone can conclude that the source doesn't mention anything about Rubio taking the side of the creationists. Perhaps it's better to read the source in question before commenting on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the source is TPM [11], copyrghted by "TPM Media, LLC" and is credited to TPM by Yahoo. The claim is clearly opinion, and the source is an opinion column from a source which proudly states Widely recognized as the pioneer of iterative journalism, which draws on readers’ knowledge to break stories which means it is reader-generated content to a great extent, one step above a Wiki. Opinion claims which are contentious do not belong in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about looking for sources that are actually about the issue, rather than taking sources that only tangentally mention the issue as a throwaway sentence. I would say that undue weight applies here since you seem to want to tell one very specific POV part of the story. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! My genuine apologies, that was just a plain unintentional screw-up on my part. I was looking at the CNN article, fixing above and looking at it again. Zad68 15:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, here is the original TPM article. Zad68 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is the original Tampa Bay Times article (a WP:NEWSBLOG written by Ron Matus, the Times' state education reporter, and listed by the Tampa Bay Times as a "blog") Pema Levy & Evan McMorris-Santoro reference from their TPM article, and here is a primary source, a letter, signed by Rubio and others.
    My opinion: The proposed content is supported by the source cited. The source cited, a TPM article by Levy and McMorris-Santoro, is presented by TPM as "straight news" and not a blog or opinion piece. The source the TPM article uses, a Tampa Bay Times article, is a WP:NEWSBLOG which cites an article by the Florida Baptist Witness, and a letter signed by Rubio and four other lawmakers. TPM has a decided liberal slant, which does not make it non-WP:RS, but would make me more likely to want to see in-article attributions to their analysis if used in articles. It appears to me to be an unfair shading of Rubio's position to describe it as "siding with creationists" (even though it is accurate to say so) when it is not his stated position (from these sources, at least) that he believes in creationism or that creationism be taught in schools. I would not straight-up revert the proposed content if I saw it in the article but I'd like to see the analysis attributed to TPM ("Talking Points Memo stated that, as House Speaker, Rubio took the side of creationists..."), and a direct quote from Rubio used, like "A 2008 letter from Flordia House Representative Marti Coley to the Florida Board of Education, co-signed by Rubio and three others, states '[o]ur intent is not to request that science standards teach creationism or intelligent design,' but that the Board 'consider those Floridians who request that you do not present a theory that refutes, without absolute proof, the very core of their beliefs.'" Zad68 16:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion ascribed to individuals regarding the political positions of Living People is a bad road to follow as it opens up free reign to inclusion of the opinion of anybody that has a beef with the subject. 2012 is not even over yet and we already have editors attacking possible 2016 candidates. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this conversation is going outside of what WP:BLPN is designed to be used for--evaluating the use of sources to support proposed content at an article. I offered my views on the source and suggested the ways sources could be used at the article. Whether or not the TPM article should be used at all is more of a WP:UNDUE question, part of WP:NPOV. Probably at this point, the conversation should be continued at the article Talk page. Cheers... Zad68 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Responsible Management Official

    Responsible Management Official (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This page was brought to my attention via OTRS - it appears to be a weakly sourced "naughty list" outlining complaints against various officials. Could an interested editor please review the entries to ensure they meet BLP standards with regards to sourcing and WP:UNDUE? Note there is some discussion started on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The offending material has been removed. Not sure if it was a BLP violation, but it was highly inappropriate. Whether the stubbed article is worth keeping, I'll leave to others.--Scott Mac 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is interesting. The offending material was inserted by C4CFED (talk · contribs). However, the article was created by wardjordan (talk · contribs). Wardjordan also created Coalition For Change (The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)), the founder of which is one "Tanya Ward Jordan". Hmmm.--Scott Mac 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Paloma Faith

    The interminable edit war about the subject's date of birth, discussed in July at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive158#Paloma Faith, is still raging four months later, see Talk:Paloma Faith#Age. The latest development is that Majorbonkers (talk · contribs) has paid £9.25 to obtain a copy of her birth certificate and posted on the talk page a link to a scan of it. I have rev-deleted that, because of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

    Apart from the privacy aspect, the WP:RSN archives do not show any conclusive view as to whether a scan of a birth certificate is a reliable source. I would argue that it is not, because (a) WP:V requires "previously published information" and strongly prefers secondary sources, (b) the scanned image of a certificate could easily be photoshopped, (c) the object of citing published sources is that the interested enquirer could in principle check up on them.

    Posting here to ask for views on whether I was right to suppress the link to the birth certificate, and to ask for some more eyes on the situation. My own view is that if we cannot allow gallantry to let the lady choose her own birth date, we should either say that sources exist for both, or omit the date altogether. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you won't mind my being the first to reply, but Wkipedia should not let "gallantry" get in the way of facts. Another user has interestingly pointed out that Paloma's Twitter name contains the string "PalomaFaith1981", which suggestes that she herself is not interested in disguising her age: others seem to have their reasons for this, though.
    I will be watching for the views of others with great interest. The major issue here is not Paloma Faith's age: it is whether the truth is more important than what certain people would like to believe.
    --Majorbonkers (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't cite birth certificates in BLPs - they are primary sources, and we have no way of knowing whether the person referred to is the one in the bio, or another person of the same name. We do not use scanned documents as sources in BLPs (or anywhere else) as we cannot verify that they match the original (and of course because of possible copyright concerns). In consequence, the purchase and scanning of the document was a waste of time. This has nothing to do with 'truth', but instead is a matter of verifiability - find the necessary information in published secondary reliable sources instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle it is verifiable - in this context there's not really a huge difference between buying a book on Amazon to check a detail written in it, versus buying a copy of a birth certificate to check a detail written on it - the main problem here is with primary sourcing. It's easier (and more common) for an editor to lie about the contents of an offline source rather than to photoshop a birth certificate, but we don't have an absolute rule against using offline sources. bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will give AndyTheGrump £1000 to a penny that there are not two people called Paloma Faith Blomfield. Anyway, the important thing here is that Wikipedia still shows her DoB as 21.7.1985, which I have proved to myself was in fact her fourth birthday. Of course it's verifiable: anyone can spend £9.25, as I did, and get a certificate, and it's a lot less trouble to earn £9.25 than to waste hours arguing with people about whether or not it's verifiable. The 1985 mistake arose from a single newspaper article, whereas the evidence for 1981 is overwhelming. If everyone else thinks Wikipedia should go on falsely telling the world she was born in 1985, then I will just have to accept that I can no longer rely on anything I read on what I used to defend as a dependable website edited by unbiased, intelligent people. Majorbonkers (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. Wikipedia content is based on published reliable sources - and if you want us to change the policy to base content on contributor's own research ("I have proved to myself") you won't be able to do it on this noticeboard. And no, even if you convince everyone that there aren't any other 'Paloma Faith Blomfields' registered, it is still original research to come to the conclusion that the birth certificate is hers - the certificate itself won't state that it is the only one bearing that name, will it? In any case, according to the article talk page, a published source for her Paloma Faith's age has already been found - the Sunday Times. What is wrong with citing this? Actually, the best thing to do is to indicate to readers that published sources differ on her age, tell them what the sources say, and let them make their own minds up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @AndyTheGrump: Please link me to a list or describe what a "published reliable source" is. I have already linked to a newspaper article stating she was 29 in Oct' 2010 that was ignored. For me the fact that she graduated in 2002 from NSCD rules out the possibility she was born in 1985 because she would be just 16/17. I doubt it possible she went there at 14. Criggy77 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • See WP:Identifying reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Criggy77's point, that you've missed, is that xe has identified a reliable source, and everyone seems to have ignored it and kept on beating the "unreliable sources" drum. Criggy77, I haven't ignored it. But you have ignored what AndyTheGrump just said about the article's talk page. If you stop doing the very same reading only part of what people have said that you think others to be doing, then perhaps this discussion won't be stuck in a rut for another four months. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @AndyTheGrump: Before I started to take an interest in this page (or "vandalize" it, as has unkindly been suggested), it already showed that Paloma's father is Spanish and her mother English. Presumably you have read the Talk page, and also seen my link to her birth certificate before it was deleted, and observed that her father was José Ramón Blomfield, also known as Sanchez, and her mother's maiden name was Pamela Faith Oakes-Ash. The suggestion that there might be two Paloma Faith Blomfields with Spanish fathers and English mothers verges on the absurd. Majorbonkers (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A simple question - if we already have a published reliable source (per Criggy77), why do we need to engage in original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's actually absurd here is the incessant focus by you and others upon unpublished birth certificates and who is and isn't a "member" of some WWW site, which latter really is of no relevance here. Ignore the unpublished birth certificate issue, for pity's sake! We have two published newspaper sources and one school that the subject attended all giving this person's age such that in 2012 she is 31 years old. Focus on them.
      • Marshall, Tom (2010-10-29). "My Islington school made me a star, says Paloma Faith". Islington Gazette. […] the 29-year-old pop-star […] {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Munday, Matt (2012-08-05). "Time and Place: Paloma Faith". Sunday Times. News International. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) — pointed out on the talk page by 143.252.80.100 three months ago
      • "Former student has Faith in education". City and Islington College. 2010-11-05. […] the 29-year-old pop-star […] {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So, it appears to me that whilst some people don't agree with me that birth certificates are reliable (!), there is almost unanimous agreement that Paloma Faith was born in 1981, not 1985 as her Wikipedia page still wants us to believe. Despite all this, I know that if I were to correct it, within 10 minutes it would have gone back to 1985 AND I would be suspended (again) or even permanently banned for "edit warring". Could I therefore ask someone who has not previously edited the date to attempt to do so? And at the same time replace the incessant references to the poor girl as "Faith" with "she", "her", or "Paloma". At present it makes terrible reading, as it's just a sea of Faiths, and that is not even her surname. Majorbonkers (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If people are reverting properly-sourced content, they are in the wrong - but I suspect you'd find it easier to get the point across if you stayed on topic, rather than going off at a tangent. How PF is referred to in the article is another issue entirely, and hasn't even been discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew VanDyke

    Matthew VanDyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Subject is extremely upset about this article. Needs thorough review. Public complaint on Facebook here, and here's the text for those without Facebook:

    Thank you whoever corrected #Wikipedia page about me by removing #journalist description. Hopefully someone will also finally remove that Joel Simon nonsense that has been in the description for months. Simon's accusations were made in his blog and are outright lies that have been disputed now in a few press articles, and these lies have been overwhelmingly demonstrated on my site to be untrue. I am astonished that anything about Simon's libellous blog lies was ever written on Wikipedia (why would some guy's ridiculous, self-serving blog post ever be appropriate or relevant enough for Wikipedia?), and I am even more astonished that it hasn't been removed already considering that his claims are in dispute and all evidence actually points to him having lied in that blog post! If you are a Wikipedia editor, go for it and clean up that page by deleting the Joel Simon line - one man's opinion blog is not a valid source for Wikipedia from what I understand of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Maybe then the Wikipedia page will eventually be a fairly accurate and unbiased source, with your help!

    Really, blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • To which the appropriate response is, of course, "Really, Facebook?". ☺

      The disputed material was actually removed a year ago, with a lengthy edit summary. Then someone with an automated editing tool reverted the edit as "unexplained". Although a reasonable suspicion has been raised on the article's talk page that Lrmf (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in writing about this person, there is no way that that edit, given its summary, could be reasonably characterized as "unexplained".

      Ironically, there's a proper source covering this very dispute, if one decides to swap Facebook for reporting by a journalist in a newspaper.

      • Rogers, Katie (2012-11-09). "Matthew VanDyke: US citizen held in Libya emerges on Syria's frontline". The Guardian. But some of the people who searched for him say he was deceptive about his motives, namely that he and his supporters claimed he was a journalist in order to save his own life. […] VanDyke said he never called himself a journalist, and if his documentary teaser is any indication, he had never maintained any journalistic distance between himself and the rebels. […] {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bozhidar Dimitrov

    Bozhidar Dimitrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article currently includes a lengthy dot-point summary of one of the subject's books which, for obvious reasons, makes it a coatrack article. I removed that particular section, and my edit was quickly reverted. I reverted the revert and was subsequently issued with a warning (see User talk:WavesSaid#November 2012, User talk:Toddst1#ARBMAC and User talk:Toddst1#Macedonia and Hopscotch). I have attempted to engage interested editors in a discussion on the talk page as well as personally inviting the other reverting party without any success. I am just starting out and not quite sure where else to turn. --WavesSaid (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks undue to me too - I have replied on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Archer

    Jeffrey Archer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User:Betathetapi545 persistently reverts my removal of insufficiently cited, and non-encyclopedic (gossip) material from this article, and accuses me of practising vandalism in my edits despite WP:AGF. One revert reinstated "recent years" over my change to "since 2004" - obviously date sensitive usage is against WP policy. This user has previously been the subject of an inconclusive sockpuppet investigation and has a history of edit-warring. Philip Cross (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    reverted and user warned. Next time it is a block.--Scott Mac 14:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ankit Garg torture allegations

    Ankit Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Another editor is seeking to delete sourced material on torture allegations against Indian police superintendent Ankit Garg for BLP policy reasons. The main point of contention appears to be whether Garg is a sufficiently "known" figure for us to include a criminal investigation against him in his article. More detail can be found on the article's talk page; a third opinion would be welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Héctor Camacho

    Héctor Camacho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Can someone please semi-protect the article Héctor Camacho? IP users have been declaring him dead for two days now, without a source, given there have been conflicting reports of his brain death. Reverting this is making it almost impossible to work on the article otherwise. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi'd for 3 days. Can be extended if still needed.--Scott Mac 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever so thank you. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Leelee Sobieski

    Leelee Sobieski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Leelee Sobieski's page says that she was married to Matt Davis and this is not true. It comes from a tabloid, which can hardly be considered a reliable source. I try to remove it and I've been reported for vandalism, which is definitely not the case. This is untrue information that shouldn't be on her page and I keep encountering these setbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.145.27 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You might have a point there. Since you (or someone) has now removed the information while also using an edit summary, perhaps it will stay out. Feel free to come back here if not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    David Codikow

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

    This person is not notable. The content is written like a press release, by a publicist. Merely starting a law firm is not notable, and "consulting" in the music business is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.246.210 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was WP:PRODed by Nomo and de-PRODed by by Arxiloxos with the summary "Codikow was reasonably significant figure in music business, article has a few sources already & GNews ARCHIVES & HighBeam show potential sources; thus PROD not best option, AfD better if necessary." I've removed unreliably sourced content based on various WP:BLP guidelines. Claims involving third parties, themselves notable, was a rather problematic recurrence. As was the apparent use of cites to support minutiæ but not the substance of claims. As far as I can tell, this subject hasn't actually been called a creator of anything in reliable sources; at most he co-manages and co-produces. I also removed a lot of text sourced ultimately to blacklisted URLs. I've inserted a bit that shows coverage but may or may not pass the test of time in regards to WP:BLPCRIME, as it is applicable to lawsuits in general. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pran

    Page is being subjected to continuous vandalism, pronouncing the actor dead, while he's alive and recuperating the in the hospital. [12] --59.90.179.156 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protected for 7 days.--Scott Mac 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Scott for protection. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Scott --59.90.179.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip DeFranco

    Philip DeFranco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have been having some concern with a certain user by the name of Alizaa2.

    He Mentions on my talk pageUser_talk:Joe_Temp, that "we can't choose one reliable source over the other" --Alizaa2 (talk)

    I have a problem with this statement of his, It is my belief that as An Online Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to deliver the most up-to-date, and accurate information available to us.

    I think that in this case, he is incorrect, not only is the source that refers to Philip DeFranco's Legal last name as being Franchina, outdated by more than 4 years,

    The Source behind the citation referring to DeFranco himself announcing on his Facebook page that his Legal Last name is in fact Franchini,https://www.facebook.com/DeFrancoNation/posts/10151105515124407 is far more reliable then the outdated Baltimore Sun article.

    I would like to see this matter resolved as soon as possible.

    JoeTemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Temp (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, this is a somewhat grey (gray) area - I am genuinely uncertain whether we would take the word of the subject on a matter like this, over the word of a supposedly reliable source.
    Either way, it looks like you're both edit warring on the article, so you should stop doing that or you're likely to get blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Crystal Mangum

    Crystal Mangum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article certainly falls under BLP for someone, at best, notable for a single incident, and in my opinion, not notable at all. The article specifically for her is largely her arrest record. The Duke lacrosse case article has been rather obsessively edited at times with both unnecessarily specific details of tangentially related aspects of the subjects life, along with wholesale conjecture and commentary unbefitting of WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electiontechnology (talk • contribs)

    Looking at the history, in 2007, there was a consensus to redirct this bio to Duke University students rape accusation case . Then in 2011, it was recreated with the claim that events since make her notable. The only way to go now, if you disagree, is to start a new WP:AFD nomination.--Scott Mac 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ole Nydahl

    Ole Nydahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There has been a long-running attempt (since around February 2010) to include defamatory material in this article by an IP editor, based on a opinion piece in the LaCrosse Tribune. The piece being used as a source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article, refers to a defamatory claim without reporting on who made the claim or giving any indication whatsover as to where the claim could be substantiated or verified, asks a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, and then tries to make something of the subject's non-denial response. The unsubstantiated defamatory claim has been placed and replaced in the article multiple times by the IP, worded as if true (e.g. [13]).

    After thoroughly analysing the situation, I have entirely removed the section based on this material per WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd like it if someone could review this action and let me know if it was an appropriate response, and if it was indeed appropriate, to assist in convincing the IP editor that they are in error in their opinion that the material should be included. If the IP editor cannot be convinced that they are in error, I think that either the article will need protection or the IPs used by the editor should be blocked.

    Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Holly Valance

    Holly Valance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Holly's in the 24 November 2012 news, saying only 'freaks' are allowed to change her Wikipedia entry: "It only lets freaks upload – not me, with my actual biography. My 'Wiki’ is laughable."[14] I looked over the article. It seems a little gosspy and tilted towards a negative light. Those items are source and I wasn't able to figure out what to trim (since I've never heard of her and am not aware of her career). She's obviously upset about something, but didn't say what in the news article. Perhaps someone who has heard of her could give the article a once over to see whether there is anything to change/delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a couple of images that look like possible copyvios. Apart from that, no sign that the article needs urgent attention. Formerip (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this is over her place of birth – she tweeted that shortly after tweeting "Why do ppl think I was born in New Zealand? I've never even been there?", I'm guessing someone told her at that point it came from Wikipedia. An unsourced claim that she was born in New Zealand was added in August 2011 [15] which stayed there for three months [16], some further attempts to re-add it have been reverted. January (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal troubles section looks like undue weight compared to the rest of the bio, but not that big of a deal. I also removed here given name until that can be properly sourced. What else? --Malerooster (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if Holly or her "handlers" read this, they can certainly email the Wikipedia foundation or even post here or whathaveyou. It seems like the project really bends over backwards to "protect" biographies of living persons and do want to "get it right". Also, I am not a freak, just saying :)--Malerooster (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ps, Am I allowed to say she is beyond smoking hot, or will my POV now be questioned. Maybe I am a freak :) --Malerooster (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Holly Valance 1800-1.jpg is almost certainly a copyvio. Source etc seem dead. Can someone with more savy on these things review it.--Scott Mac 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, no. It's not a copyvio, it's licensed on flickr as CC-BY-SA, and is in the photostream of a professional photographer. It is however only visible to friends and family of the photographer (not sure how I count). You will notice it's flickrreviewed as well, so even if you can't see it, you know that the bot checked it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we verify that? I can't. If it isn't verifiable, then it doesn't count.--Scott Mac 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a Commons admin, I verify it now. The flickr review bot verified it when the image was uploaded. The whole point of flickrreview is that it gives us proof of licence if the image ever becomes unavailable - if you don't think that's good enough, take it to commons:Commons:Village Pump/Copyright, this is not the place to argue it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, that you personally are unable to verify it is neither here nor there. We have images verified by OTRS - I can't check the ticket to see if they're ok, does that mean they should be deleted? No. We trust the systems we put in place for verification. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't do Commons, but it is perfectly valid to ask that the use of an image on en.wp is settled on en.wp. The definition of verification is that it can be checked. The reality is that most people can't check this, so they have to go with "trust me". Now, I've no reason not to trust you, so probably I'll let it lie, but it isn't verification.--Scott Mac 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a screenshot of the two images showing that they are still freely licensed (oh wait, I didn't include a photo of a newspaper, I MUST BE LYING!) http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/temp/holly.jpg
    You're wrong though. Issues about Commons images should be settled on Commons. en.wp can ask whether they want to use them - that's an entirely en.wp issue - but whether they are freely licensed is a Commons issue. If you want to take issue with our verification structure, do it on Commons. However, you are treading a dangerous path. The flickr review process ensures that at the time the photo was uploaded, the image was available under a free licence. Flickr accounts and photos can be deleted, licences there can change, things can be made private. But that doesn't matter, because we have proof of the licence, and the licence is irrevocable. If you're not willing to accept the system because you cannot check it yourself (do you argue with your calculator about what sine of 25 degrees is?), then the logical conclusion is that nothing we can do is ever good enough, because you cannot check everything. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot thing only checks the licence as entered on flickr, though, not that the uploader is entitled to grant a licence. Like Scott, I'm not sure I care enough to make a big issue of this, but the image has definitely been through a lossy process, which doesn't necessary scream legitimacy. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have to use judgement. You never saw me take the 5k photos I've uploaded, how do you know I'm not perpetrating a massive copyfraud? You don't. But we assume good faith unless we have a good reason to doubt. The photostream belongs to someone who (claims) to be a professional photographer. The images are clearly done at a photoshoot, so it's reasonable to assume they were done by a professional photographer. The flickr user has several thousand images in their stream of professional quality. Now, we cannot say for certain that the images were taken by the flickr user, but it seems like quite a stretch to assume that all those thousands of photos are copyvios. At some point you have to just assume a reasonable amount of good faith. Without that, everything breaks down. To use a wikipedia example, we'd have to ban all offline references, because you can't verify them yourself. Further, you'd have to ban online references, because you have no idea whether the reference is complete bollocks. Without assuming (until shown otherwise) that people are behaving in good faith, wikipedia - heck, society - cannot exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the photos were obviously done by a professional, which makes it a little surprising that they've been given to the world for free. Where are you seeing thousands of professional-quality photos? The stream is private, so all I can see is one dodgy-looking photo uploaded to Commons. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The stream is private, and I apparently qualify as a "family and/or friend", I think because I was the person who first asked the photographer if she'd release the photos for Commons. I see 19,885 photos, almost all with all rights reserved, but with the ones I specifically asked about licensed as CC-BY-SA. There are 78 photos in the Holly Valance set, which are in the collection "production stills". They clearly show one event (maybe a few extras, unsure), with all the entourage etc of the shoot. I can provide screenshots of that too if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Bozzio

    Dale Bozzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I think we may have been here before, but let's do it again. The constant back-and-forthing in this article over a minor conviction (90 days) for animal cruelty is a bit disruptive. In my opinion, the matter is of undue weight in this BLP. Now, Doc2234 is a bit of a defender of the article and may make a different argument; I don't know how involved The Master is (haven't checked in the history) but their arguments should be heard here as well. In the meantime, I have reverted (again) to remove the matter from the article; I'm kind of hoping that some attention to the matter on this noticeboard can lead to a permanent consensus that can maybe be codified on the article talk page. Thanks for all y'all's attention, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Crap, this isn't easy :). I am a deletionist/minimalist, see Dario Maestripieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for not wanting to include FB controversy, but here might be a little different or not. How much "press" did this recieve? Were there BIG ramifications? Was this really a big deal or are people trying to make more out of this. How biographical is it really? I would like to see the arguments from both sides. --Malerooster (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reviewing article history, and drafting my arguments with the intent of uploading tomorrow. Doc2234 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start with the notion that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply because the subject is WP:WELLKNOWN and there was a conviction. And not everything within an article need be independently notable. But the event here neither derives from nor adds to this subject's notability. Neither the event's relevance to what makes this biography encyclopedic, nor the event's enduring biographical significance, has been demonstrated. There's also the very reasonable question of the reliability of the sources supporting adverse BLP content. If you're looking for a WP:CONSENSUS, the material in question was removed with an edit summary describing the coverage as tabloid. I agree. The same very material was removed again describing the passage as WP:UNDUE. I agree even more. Unless and until the topic of animal cruelty is clearly part of a noteworthy aspect of the subject's life, the topic should remain out of the BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After following the sourcing links provided, I have to agree with JFJr that this does not merit inclusion (and said the same at the RfC). a13ean (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many sources covering this. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. The Master (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them are tabloid quality, and none indicate any particular importance of the events themselves along the grand scheme of things to merit inclusion in the subject's biographical entry. If her notability beings to rest partially on animal cruelty, better sources will avail. JFHJr (㊟) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ankit Fadia

    Ankit Fadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Since the previous report, this article has continued to have a series of strange edits (mostly content removal) and it ended up a stub. An editor is now looking to restore the controversy section, which I've reverted as the source given doesn't look RS to me, and obviously it would be undue to have the article with just a controversy section. Is there anything suitable in the history that could be used? This is the last version before the latest round of content removal started. January (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think restoring last 'stable' version of the article will be good idea. I know why the removal of the content of this article started. It all started when is official website got hacked, he was criticized all over the web that He couldn't protect his very own website and calls himself a hacker. He himself or any of his supporter tried to remove his critics and other questionable content from his Wikipedia article. --Ak47art (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I brought this here because I don't think anything should be restored without being thoroughly reviewed. This article has been a persistent target of BLP violations, the criticisms added were from unreliable sources (blogs, self-published sources and even a "We hate Ankit Fadia" Facebook page) and when I first came across the article it was a blatant attack. The attack material was in fact removed by me and I'm not a "supporter", I didn't even know who he was. January (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eduardo Savarin - Ethnic focus

    "Born a Jew, always a Jew."

    Eduardo Saverin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This revert is disputed - diff - born a Jew always a Jew?[citation needed] - Youreallycan 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick note. I removed the infobox ethnicity twice. However, when the IP insisted, I stopped, not because I agree, but because of previous contentious/futile discussions about this topic and because I didn't want to edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the IP comments - "Religion would be self-indentified. Ethnicity he is born with. Born a Jew, always a Jew." - are we now identifying living peoples .. ( often disputable and confused with religious beliefs ) ethnicity? I am English with Scottish ancestry but I have to put British on all the forms - I have a British passport - Savarin doesn't have a Jewish passport - he is Brazilian - don't know if he is religious - there is no mention of religious belief in his wikipedia biography. Has/have we any citations where Eduardo Saverin identifies himself as an ethnic Jew? Per WP:BLPCAT I agree with Bb23 and would remove the ethno religios tagging.Youreallycan 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and have reverted "pending discussion" here. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no particular interest in this article and don't intend to edit it. But I think that YRC's posts here are clear violations of the RFC conditions to which he agreed, and I hope not to see them repeated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you see clear violations then go report them - get on it - I have three weeks of a four month BLP editing restriction left - At my last arb...ish I got a user ban from Prioryman , I want one from you also User:Nomo - Youreallycan 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, YRC. It's a pretty unambiguous breach. What are you trying to prove? And why, for pity's sake? Please, just come down off the ledge without making a fuss about it. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? I suggest that it is not a "breach" of anything at all/ Cheers. Find an admin to back your position up if you feel strongly on this. Collect (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You might not be aware that YRC is under an editing restriction, part of which is: "do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy". Formerip (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To return to the content issue. There's no evidence his "ethnicity" is a key part of his identity - so it certainly does not have to appear as a highlighted fact in any infobox. If the sources say he belongs to an "Jewish Brazilian family", then the article should record that and not extrapolate to his "ethnicity". We need go no further. We tell the reader what the sources say, and stop. Ethnicity isn't simple like nationality (which is a legal fact), it has much to do with how people self-identify. But we don't even need to get into that - tell the reader the facts and let them draw their own conclusions.--Scott Mac 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources indicate that the subject of the biography is Jewish:
    "As members of the Jewish faith, the Saverin family could have easily emigrated to Israel under the Law of Return."[23]
    "The author of The Accidental Billionaires, on which The Social Network is based, says being an outsider was a big part of what led Zuckerberg and his original business partner, a Brazilian Jew called Eduardo Saverin, to set up Facebook."[24]
    "Religion: Jewish."[25]
    "Zuckerberg knew Saverin from Alpha Epsilon Pi, a selective fraternity for Jewish students to which both had recently pledged."[26]
    "Eduardo's family were Jewish and had barely escaped the Holocaust to move to Brazil before being forced to relocate again to Florida, where Eduardo's father had become very successful in banking."[27]
    Are there any sources suggesting otherwise? Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Busstop, I'm not going 5 rounds with you on your favourite "who is a Jew" rants. What he's said about himself can all be narrated in the article - no one is doubting his Jewish lineage. But there's no need for this to be in an infobox as there's not indication it is particularly significant.--Scott Mac 00:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "of Jewish descent" seems like a reasonable thing to say. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is already categorized that way, which is appropriate, and the article says he comes from a Jewish family. That's more than enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we need a template [Photo of cock needed] .Formerip (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the infobox? I agree with Scott; it's not that important that it even needs to be in the infobox, even if there were a field called "Descent".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I hear somebody say "cock"? --Malerooster (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We should keep an article topic's religion excluded from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kylie Minogue

    Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The Kylie Minogue article, which is featured, says that the singer's fans dubbed her as "The Goddess of Pop" under this sources: 1 and 2. The first calls her "a real pop goddess", and the latter is a comment box—it is wrong in so many levels. Lordelliott (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Google shows thousands of results (for Kylie Minogue "Goddess of Pop"), just find the respective sources. Everyone can find and add new sources. There just takes time and a willingness - no more. So, user Lordelliott, instead make a fuss, can find and add new sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If YOU want to add new info, YOU should present the sources, not give the work to other users just because the sources "can be found on Google". Also, I took time to search for reliable sources calling her "The Goddess of Pop" and I just found blogs. Lordelliott (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This text existed a long time and I did not add to the article. I'm not alone on Wikipedia, if google shows thousands of results, everyone can find to add new sources. There just takes time and a willingness - no more. I do not write directly to you, I write to each other users. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This text was added to the article after it was promoted as a FA (obviously). Google actually shows thousands of blogs and gossip sites. If you find any reliable source calling her "The Goddess of Pop", then you can keep the "Goddess of Pop" claim. Lordelliott (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a book reference about the "pop goddess" nick here here. Lordelliott, I don't understand why are you seeping this issue on BLP/N - it's hardly a controversial or problematic BLP claim, looks like a routine sourcing issue to dissect on the appropriate talkpage or at WP:3O. --Cyclopiatalk 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyclopia, that's because this issue would not be replied on her talk page. According to the ref you presented, we should keep "pop goddess" on her article, not "The Goddess of Pop" as it was. Lordelliott (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "that's because this issue would not be replied on her talk page" - That's the kind of small issues for which WP:3O or WP:RFC is for. We deal with egregious violations of the WP:BLP policy here, not with every issue about BLP editing . --Cyclopiatalk 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the remark. :) Lordelliott (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=524769653"