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.

Lloyd Irvin (again)

• Lloyd Irvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been the subject of two previous referrals: [1] [2]

Lloyd Irvin is a reasonably well-known martial arts instructor who has a Wikipedia article.

1. In 2013 two of his students were accused of rape on a third student. This is reported on wjla.com: [3] There have been various developments as a result of these charges.
2. The martial arts press uncovered what appeared to be court and newspaper records of an earlier (1989) incident involving Lloyd Irvin, in which he was accused of a sexual crime but was found not guilty.
3. Lloyd Irvin released an open letter: [4] on January 22nd which confirmed his involvement in the court case from 1989, and reasserted his successful defense from the court case that he did not have sex with anyone in the 1989 incident. He also noted that the students who had been accused of a crime on New Year's Eve had only been training with him for a few months.
4. The martial arts press reported on March 5th: "Irvin crippled by mass exodus of top students after yet another scandal", where at least ten of his top students quit en-masse following further allegations. [5]
5. On March 10th the MMA press reported that "With more and more affiliate schools cutting ties with Team Lloyd Irvin, Irvin has announced that the entire program has been terminated." [6]

Now, clearly this is a sensitive matter which is needs to be handled extremely carefully. However the allegations are clearly having a massive effect on Lloyd Irvin's life; students are leaving his school, people are breaking off ties, and he is being forced to defend himself in the press with regard to his earlier acquittal. My personal thought is that the way to approach it is to report the accusations against two of his students (number 1 above), which is a matter of record, and his response (number 3 above), only touching on the earlier accusations as much as is necessary to understand his response. Similarly it seems reasonable to briefly mention his recent statement ending his "affiliate" program (number 5 above), as reported in the martial arts press. I'm not confident on the sourcing for number 4 above.

Following a short discussion on the Talk page, given the previous history I was advised to bring it here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts. --Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time this landed here we noted that the sources were crappy at best (no way to determine reliability), that it wasn't clear that the "event" had had any lasting effect on the man's life or career, and that the addition of the material in relation to the rest of the bio was an issue of undue weight. Has any of that changed? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally thought one of the most interesting policy invocations from last time was WP:NPF, so I'd be curious to see how that would be handled, or if it even needed to be. I think this is a classic case of inclusion vs exclusion; where is the line between encyclopedic and tabloid? Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing reason for including any discussion of this material, per WP:NPF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to FreeRangeFrogs points: 1) sources currently include the website of WJLA-TV, i.e. channel 7, the ABC affiliated television station, and Irvin's own public written statements on the matter, as reported in secondary sources, in addition to a couple of martial arts websites. 2) it's clearly having a major effect on his life; "at least ten" of the best members of his team, i.e. his medal hopes, have just quit; three of his largest "affiliate" gyms publicly disassociated themselves this year, leading to Lloyd apparently deciding to end the affiliate program on his own terms and terminating the whole program. His own very long public statement, as issued to one of the oldest mixed martial arts magazines, suggests he is taking this extremely seriously. 3) Regarding undue weight, this may well be the thing that Lloyd Irvin will be best known for in coming years. I had not heard of him, despite his association with various top level martial artists, until the events recently reported in the martial arts press. I agree that it should not be allowed to dominate the entire article, but it seems appropriate to at least mention what will probably be regarded as the collapse of his entire business model. In the specific context of Team Lloyd Irvin, which is currently a paragraph in his article, it seems to be extremely relevant.

In response to WP:NPF, it's an interesting argument, but again, I strongly suspect this will be the incident he becomes best known for. The wording is: "include only material relevant to the person's notability". I would suggest that it's the main reason why he would be considered notable in martial arts at this point in time. In other words, this ongoing incident is bringing him to a level of notability higher than he had before, when he was only known as a respected competitor and trainer of a few significant athletes. --Merlinme (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I tip my hat to your points Merlinme and while I'd like to clarify that I'm neutral toward inclusion or otherwise, I'd also like to voice my concern in two areas in response. First, in regards to your best sources, those are predominately, if not exclusively, focused upon the alleged rape committed by his students and, other than being the figurehead for their former organization, I'm concerned that they don't have much bearing on Irvin himself in a direct personal manner. From what I could/can ever find online, I believe FreeRangeFrog is correct in that most of the sources regarding Irvin directly are MMA/BJJ blogs, and not more reputable sources. Secondly, while you might be right and your strong suspicion may be correct in that he could become more notable for this event than anything else in his entire career, I think that's probably a case for WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is it not just as probable the man could move past this event and rebuild his organization? Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the sources which tip this into Verifiable are his own public statements on the matter; if anything they will presumably be biased towards him, not against him, yet they clearly confirm the basic facts, i.e. that some of his students were involved in an extremely nasty incident, that people in the martial arts world have raised with him recently an incident which he confirms he was put on trial (and acquitted) for in 1989, and that he has has had to recently end his affiliate program: "...there is clearly a lynch mob made up of a handful of people who will settle for NOTHING other than my head-on-a-stick or me hanging from a tree...This is to serve notice to the lynch mob members that they can stop targeting, bullying and attempting to harm my affiliates businesses because they are no longer affiliates", as reported in the mma press: [7]

If you read the public statement from former affiliate Beta-academy [8], in addition to the statements of his former students who've quit en-masse [9], I find it very hard to see how he will rebuild his business. I don't think either of those can currently go in to the article, because of problems with sourcing and possible bias in the allegations, but it's still fair to say that his reputation is currently taking a bit of a battering.

It is indeed difficult to be sure without a crystal ball what the exact outcome of all this will be, but on the other hand I find it seems to be stretching "undue weight" to breaking point to mention Team Lloyd Irvin and not mention at least the (verifiable) basics of why it seems to be collapsing. --Merlinme (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, ok. I guess if we can agree and accept that most of the sources will necessarily be various blog posts, that inclusion doesn’t violate WP:NPF, WP:UNDUE, or is too much a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that it of course satisfies wiki's rigorous BLP policy, particularly with regards to slander, I’m for inclusion. I just mention these again to highlight why I’ve been so cautious to this point. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which out of the following sources: wjla report of initial incident: [10] official irvin statement in press [11] reporting of separate irvin statement in press: [12] do you consider problematic? --Merlinme (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly? I've long been skeptical of the bloodyelbow blog posts regarding the issue as they stand the most to gain by sensationalizing to gain readership. Obviously the WJLA report is much more mainsteam, but as we've discussed on the talk page, I'm concerned how it and the other mainsteam sources don't even mention Irvin (the individual) once, nor really indicate what actual link he has to the incident. However, and again, as long as we have some rough consensus that the many nagging issues raised here (and before) are not considered applicable (or overly applicable) in regards to this content then I'll support it as well. You're obviously very passionate about this inclusion and that would suggest to me that for every Merlinme there must be a large number of unvoiced ip editors out there who feel the same way. 22:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that a single editor is strongly motivated to get this information into the article. I continue to think it violates WP:NPF, and WP:TOPIC as well. Can I please ask other BLPN regulars to look closely at this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look. polarscribe (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The WJLA report says, in paragraph 3, "According to court documents, the young woman, Maldonado and Schultz all know each other from the Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camps Springs where they trained." This would appear to make it directly relevant to Team Lloyd Irvin, and to the extent that he's felt the need to publicly defend his reputation and his business (which uses his name), directly relevant to Lloyd Irvin as well. I would ask that people read the sources I've suggested before making any decision based on previous consensus. And yes, based on edits, there do seem to be a significant number of IPs who think the information should be included in some form, although that wouldn't be relevant if the information weren't both relevant to his life and verifiable. --Merlinme (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's your carefully considered opinion after reading the sources which I've provided, yes?

I'd prefer it if we kept this civil and didn't use one word policy references. --Merlinme (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now just hold on there for a moment Merlinme. I don’t think the policy reference is necessarily uncivil or even entirely unwarranted. While certainly everyone, including myself, wishes to assume good faith in the purposed changes, I’d still imagine that anytime an individual editor appears and vehemently wishes to include content to a BLP article which clearly appears deleterious to the subject (and said editor remains just as stalwart in the face of all purposed policy concerns) it gives some reason to wonder what the motivations might be. I’m sure the good folks at the BLP noticeboard see more than their fair share of such. At any rate, if anyone has cause to hope things remain civil regarding this article it’s undoubtedly Irvin himself. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume good faith if others are prepared to assume the same of me. I stand by my request that people read the sources I've provided and use arguments longer than one word. --Merlinme (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Concision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for another considered attempt at debate.

If the question is regarding my motives, they're very simple; I saw Lloyd Irvin in the news; as is often the case when I wish to find out more information about something, I went to Wikipedia to find out more about him; in this case I discovered that Wikipedia did not even mention what is apparently the most important event in his life right now, where his comptetition team and business are being hit by defections and he has had made a long statement to try to defend himself in the most public forum imaginable for a Brazilian jiu jitsu trainer, where the incident has been on-going for several months and has been reported in multiple sources (some of them, admittedly, better than others). When I went to the talk page to discuss if this information should be added in some form, I found it full of an ongoing debate about including the information, and I was told to come here if I felt the information should be included. And here we are. --Merlinme (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone (Polarscribe?) had a chance to look at this?

I'm happy to discuss the exact wording if it would be helpful. I suspect a lot of the opposition to changing the article has been based on the belief that I am proposing to add reams of coat-rack text which overwhelms the article. That's not my intention. What I want to do is make the article reflect the major news items which have been affecting Lloyd Irvin's life recently. But this can be done fairly succinctly. The article currently reads:

Team Lloyd Irvin

Lloyd Irvin is the head coach of the eponymous Team Lloyd Irvin, a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and mixed martial arts organization operating in the Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S.[4][5][6]

A number a prominent grapplers and MMA fighters have attended his school at one time, such as Mike Fowler, JT Torres, and Ryan Hall.[7]

I would like to add something like:

Rape allegations against Lloyd Irvin students

Two of Lloyd Irvin's students were charged in January 2013 with the rape of a woman they knew from Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camp Springs. [13] Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty. [14] On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses. [15]

I'm happy to discuss the exact wording. I recognise this is tricky. I still think an article with some mention of what is clearly the major item in his life in 2013 is better than an article without. --Merlinme (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm before this gets archived, is anyone going to object if I add this text? If so, could you say why (and what you think it would be appropriate to add, if anything). Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I continue to object, per WP:TOPIC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and I don't think it's appropriate to add anything at all on the topic. The main story here is not about what Irvin did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I confirm that you've read the sources I provided? I disagree that it's not relevant to the topic, as Lloyd Irvin has issued at least two public statements defending his team and business, which have clearly been affected. In particular the recent issues are directly relevant to the "Team Lloyd Irvin" section of the article. I agree the text should not overwhelm the article, but I think having something there does not in itself break undue weight. If consensus is against me that the information is not relevant to the article then I won't take it any further; if the question is more of undue weight then I'm happy to discuss what would be appropriate text.

Does anyone else have a view? Buddy23Lee? Polarscribe? --Merlinme (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno Merlinme. As I’ve mentioned, I can definitely empathize with your inclusive passions, but I’m willing to concede that policy considerations, whether as a whole or only in part, are evidently superseding here. I’m not certain that it’s worth disregarding each of these policy dilemmas (or even only potential policy dilemmas) for even a major article, let alone this undisputedly very minor BLP. When this issue first arose, I myself was the one to bring the matter here (twice), knowing that it needed some type of consensus from editors experienced in exactly these types of BLP issues. Ultimately, consensus then was what it appears to be now, that it was not worthy for inclusion. At this point I think we should respect this and I would encourage you to let this matter rest. We both know there are a thousand other areas on the wiki that would benefit immensely from even a fraction of the effort you’ve put into this endeavor. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, on the grounds previously discussed that I like encyclopedias to be accurate. I like to correct articles as I'm going along, and I've spent plenty of time finding sources for other minor articles. At the moment I think the article gives a misleading impression about Team Lloyd Irvin in particular. However unless something significant changes, like Irvin himself being charged with something, I'm clearly not going to win this battle, so let's leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• As the incident has significantly impacted on him, his career/job & Team Lloyd Irvin, it should be at least mentioned. Details should be minimal on the actual arrest/charging of the students, with more detail on the impact it has had on his business. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As I read the sources, there aren't any sources for the "impact on his business". There is one truly secondary source here; the other two contain his "open letter" and the contents of his facebook post. This really has not achieved the kind of coverage in reliable secondary sources that justifies any mention here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well if he considers it important enough to release a personal statement to interested parties, and they consider it important enough to publish/print it, thats good enough for me. But like I said, I would have the focus on the effect its had on his business. You could condense the mention of the rape charges to half a sentence quite easily. Undue, topic and coatrack are not applicable as it certainly is relevant - given his notability is intricately linked with his career. At best, you can raise an argument its not got enough secondary sources discussing it, but last I checked, there wasnt a hard limit on how many sources something needs to be included. Also given the insular and specialised nature of the MMA community, its not likely to make 'mainstream' press anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Even if Irvin were WP:WELLKNOWN, we would need "multiple" reliable secondary sources for this sort of material -- and what we have here is one such source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If person A says X, and publication B reports that person A said X, why is that not a secondary source? Anyway, a couple more sources: Graciemag reported Keenan Cornelius leaving Team Lloyd Irvin in February 2013; Cornelius said: "I can no longer be absolutely sure that this is the right environment for me under the current and enlightening circumstances." [16]. An article in more "mainstream" media, concentrating on Irvin's SEO techniques (although most of it is based on reports in the MMA press): [17]. --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yay for this continuing...honestly, it seems to me the incident with the students and the alleged rape are the only aspects of this with good sourcing and not really a BLP issue, as they belonged in the team article. Now that the team article has been merged with the BLP I would assume that all the relevant policies mentioned thus far would extend to the entire article. I guess my main point here is that I am, and always have been, more comfortable with the factual aspects of this (e.g. two former students charged with rape) than the more speculative, opinionative, and often moralistic sources (i.e. blog sites that allege things like "internet marketing trickery"). Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, one last try. There's clearly no consensus for Lloyd Irvin references. There's some support for Team Lloyd Irvin references. How about:

Defections from Team Lloyd Irvin

In February and March 2013 it was reported that some of Irvin's best students had left his team.[18] Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him.[19]

Does anyone object to that? --Merlinme (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The more we see reliable sources accrue, the more appropriate it becomes to give some space to this issue. The question here, though, is: does bloodyelbow.com meet WP:RS? I recommend raising it at RSN (having first looked for previous discussions in the archive). The answer isn't clear to me, so some feedback at RSN would surely be useful. You'll need to formulate a proposed text, so that they can consider the RS question in proper context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lloyd_Irvin_sources. I am beginning to come round to Buddy23Lee's point of view that there might be better things to do with my time; I wasn't really expecting it to take this long. However I am genuinely quite interested on the reliability ruling on public statements, so might as well see this through. --Merlinme (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In this amount of time we could have independently written Irvin's biography. :) One thing I'd be curious about is whether any "defections" or any comings or goings of individual students would even be notable enough to warrant mentioning. Having composed the Keenan article I would probably assert his notablity would extend to the team article in this regard. I would also imagine that if bloodyelbow is deemed a sufficent source that mentioning the alleged "mass exodus" would necessarily become includable content as well, just hopefully in a less bombastic manner, as exemplified above. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this not relevant, or credible, or reliable? Why has no one considered this article? Last time I looked, TheVerge.com was a major news outlet. Also, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the home invasion incident is supported by a Bloody Elbow article, but Bloody Elbow's credibility is being questioned in relationship to the rape incident.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4204908/martial-arts-champ-responds-to-rape-allegations-with-internet-marketing-trickery

Yes anonymous, that article was mentioned in the section above. To address the point you raise about the home invasion cite, in that instance the content being substantiated by the citation is generally uncontentous. The content being discussed here is contentous (potentially libelous), and thus the potential for it to be "poorly sourced" causes it to be an issue under WP:BLP. Under BLP policy, the quality of sources is held to a higher standard, particularly when proports something defamatory. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Khanna

a new editor User:Drosslifter have added unsourced and defamatory content on Bob Khanna. I try to undo his edit, but he is continuing to revert my edit. So now I have given up. Kindly look into the matter. --Vigyani (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Drosslifter (talk · contribs) is an spa, only editing the BK article

Looking into the history of the article Bob Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this rather interesting user

Gruntfuttock115 (talk · contribs)

who only writes (creates) articles about (living) people and companies, paid editing anyone, and most of them have been tagged as being written like an advertisement. Maybe if a few of you have some time to look through the latter user's contributions? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed also as User:Drosslifter told on his talk page. Which again points about Drosslifter being SPA as he somehow knew or must have noticed this before creating an account. However I could not locate his sockpupeteer by checking User:Gruntfuttock115's edit history. --Vigyani (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No Vigyani, Drosslifter wants the BK article deleted as x/he asserts here in no uncertain terms, there is no sockpuppet, but my observation was that all of Gruntfuttock's contribs are to create promotional-style articles about people or companies. And on Dross's talk page x/he asserts that Gruntfuttock is/works for Palamedes PR (although offers no proof), which sort of backs up my theory that there is a whole heap of paid editing going on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, he wants BK to be deleted ( he has written a line on talk:BK also). i do not deny ur theory. I am merely saying that Drosslifter mentioned about Grunt/paid editing on his talk page. Why I think Drosslifter is sock as you also mentioned in your previous post, since he knew about possibility of Grunt editing BK article in a way which appears promotional. Also I just went bit more carefully through Grunt's edit. He is creating promotional pages. I checked the versions of the articles he created and found those promotional. And he seems to have particular interest in SWNS. created 3 articles for companies related to them. --Vigyani (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One of which is the PR company we're talking about, and Gruntfuttock115 apparently works for. 21:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Ok here we go, all created by Gruntfuttock115 (talk · contribs):

• • Gurpareet Bains[20], and guest blogger on their site no less
  • Wynndel Property Management [21], check text in left column: Palamedes PR gave us more coverage in a week than our previous ‘top-end’ agency did in a year. Apparently the text in the aforementioned left column updates to give different client tributes, this is the quote that I copied from the website, FYI.21:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OnePoll[22]
  • Angus Kennedy (chocolate taster)[23]
  • Cathy Glass (author)[24]
  • and of course the company page Palamedes PR
  • and 72 Point, a sister company of Palamdes— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigyani (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So, some or all, may have the required notability, but as far as I can see this is wiki-spamming with OTT, gushing articles about the company's clients. Battleaxes ready? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good detective work, Captain. I'm guessing maybe there's enough here to warrant a case over at WP:AN/I? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I put a call in to Orange Mike who is an admin and regularly deals with this kind of thing, but I would say that it's maybe ANI-worthy. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No response from OM, so maybe this should go to AN/I, what say ye? Anyone care to do the honours (I have jam to pot!). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No admins passing through? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev

Nina Dobrev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was redirected by another editor to post here about an edit request.The request is about changing Canadian to Bulgarian-Canadian.My reliable sources and arguments are the following:

In an official interview for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com) Nina Dobrev says "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!".Here is the link: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 .If Nina Dobrev herself is saying that she is Bulgarian, then I don't see a logical reason why in her wikipage should be written only Canadian?!Sofia News Agency refers to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian and even one of the references used in the wikipage of Nina Dobrev- NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief from deadline.com also refers to her as Bulgarian-Canadian http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/123303/ .If NIKKI FINKE is good enough to be used by other editors in BLP I don't see a logical reason why she wouldn't be good enough to be used by me as a reference. --Dvrt09 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something (I'm the editor who directed this here), regarding MOS:BIO. That guideline says that in the first sentence, we may only refer to a living person's nationality, not their ethnicity/descent. The question then becomes, when Dobrev calls herself "Bulgarian", does she mean "of Bulgarian ethnicity" or "of Bulgarian citizenship"? Similarly, is the newspaper saying "Canadian citizen of Bulgarian descent" (like the way we usually use the phrase in the U.S.) or does it mean "dual citizen of Bulgaria and Canada"? I'm not sure how we can tell. The article does currently state further down that she was born in Bulgaria; my personal inclination is always to err on the side of caution w.r.t. ethnicity/citizenship issues, but I can understand the argument that Dvrt09 is making. Outside opinions will be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just say "Canadian, born in Bulgaria" seems the logical move. Collect (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But Nina Dobrev didn't said "I am born in Bulgaria", she said "I am Bulgarian".The term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians.Besides as far as I know wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources but only to use them as references.The real questions here are:1.Do reliable sources refer to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian?Yes, they do!; 2.Does Nina Dobrev say that she is Bulgarian?Yes, she does! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source where she says she is Bulgarian, then it would appear that WP:BLPCAT is satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is! "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay to me. I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could be referring to myself as American (ethnically), but if I don't have American citizenship, I am not legally an American. I think we should be cautious as per the concerns of Qwyrxian above. Nymf _{talk to me} 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Many people will emphatically state "I am <ethnicity>!", even if they're a third or fourth generation immigrant to another country. But I just might be willing to let this particular one go, given the variety of sources and the unsourced OR which makes it likely to be true. Just a side note: do we know that both Bulgaria and Canada allow dual citizenship? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nymf I already said that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean.Besides Nina Dobrev is not "third or fourth generation immigrant", she is native to Bulgaria and born there under the name Николина Костантинова Добрева!The facts are that Nina Dobrev herself claims to be Bulgarian and the term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians-exactly the case of Nina Dobrev! --Dvrt09 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to this information Canadian law permits dual or multiple citizenships: http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship Another source confirms that both Bulgaria and Canada recognise dual citizenship: http://www.thelaw.com/guide/immigration/dual-citizenship-countries-list/ --Dvrt09 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: Chapter 2, Article 25 (1):"...anyone who was born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a Bulgarian citizen" ; (3): "A Bulgarian citizen by birth may not be deprived of his Bulgarian citizenship". Here is the link : http://www.investbulgaria.com/laws/constitution.pdf --Dvrt09 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source about the Constitution of Bulgaria: "Constitution-Making in the region of the former Soviet dominance" by Rett R Ludwikowski page 353-354 Here is the link: http://books.google.bg/books?id=qw8o0_c0m74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Constitution-Making+in+the+region+of+the+former+Soviet+dominance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=48B0Ue_2CMPStQbNrIGgBA&redir_esc=y --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev was born in Bulgaria and according to the Constitution of Bulgaria this makes her automatically Bulgarian citizen.Besides Nina claims herself to be Bulgarian so everything looks pretty clear to me. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying "She was born in Bulgaria, the constitution of Bulgaria says that people born in Bulgaria are citizens, therefore she is a citizen" is prohibited WP:OR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding @Nomoskedasticity. If Nina's own words are not important then I don't know what is?! I see double standard in wikipedia:(( "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Her own words aren't any good here because they are ambiguous--it's not clear whether she means she is a Bulgarian citizen or whether she is of Bulgarian ethnicity. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Ken -- we don't have to be any more specific than she was. We can just say "she is Bulgarian" -- consistent with the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee I already said multiple times that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean, but only to use them as references!!Besides according to the law in Bulgaria she is Bulgarian citizen by birthright and saying that she is only canadian is nothing more than a lie and false information!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So I'm seeing a consensus here that we can't be sure that she meant "Bulgarian citizen". If that is the case, then we cannot say "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lead, but we can state somewhere later, "In an interview, Dobrev stated "I am Bulgarian"." Does that seem reasonable? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. Someone has already made the point that the lead, in saying she is "a Canadian actress", implies quite strongly that Canadian is the only citizenship she holds. In that respect it is evidently misleading, a disservice to our readers and an insult to her to the extent that the Bulgarian element of her identity is important to her. On the basis of that latter point, I favor "Canadian/Bulgarian" in the lead. What gets in the way, apparently, is MOSBIO -- though there is some wiggle room in what it says about ethnicity. To the extent that MOSBIO is getting in the way here, that seems like a problem with MOSBIO. If editors are nonetheless going to insist on slavishly following it, then WP:BLP in my reading would lead to removing any mention of citizenship from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you @Nomoskedasticity!This is the reason why there are complains about this article on the talk page of Nina Dobrev."Canadian actress" really implies the she has only one canadian citizenship without sources to prove this and at the same time it downplays her Bulgarian element which is very important for her.I hope a solution can be found on how to balance this article better. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this stuff -- and it appears 1. she calls hereself "Bulgarian" but does not assert she is a Bulgarian citizen. 2. She has Canadian citizenship, which no one seems to regard as a contentious claim. 3. We have no standard for saying that hyphens assert citizenship, or whether they assert national identification, or whether they assert ancestry. Ergo: It is reasonable for us to call her a Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, avoiding any possible misuse of hyphens here. It is not required or even logical that we find a source stating a negative, which means we can not assume she has dual citizenship, or, more tellingly, separate passports. Absent positive statements that she is in that category, it would by OR for Wikipedia to make that assumption. BTW, a person saying "I am Italian" in the US generally means "Italian ancestry" and not "citizenship." Collect (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean about "canadian actress" was that the way it is written mislead people to beleive that Nina Dobrev is related only and only to Canada which couldn't be further from the truth.The complaints on the talk page are exactly about this.That's why I suggest to write that she is "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" this has the same meaning like your suggestion "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth" but with less words.I also think this would be more accurate because Nina refers to herself as Bulgarian without specifying anything and I think it would be better to leave it that way to be consistent with the source.And when we write "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" we acknowledge the fact that she does have canadian citizenship but at the same we leave some space to the possibility that she may have another citizenship as well, because we don't specify what the term Bulgarian refers to exactly like Nina did in her interview.About the italians you are talking about-How many of them are born in US and how many of them are born in Italy?!Paul Wesley for example is born to polish parents, but he is born in US and he has nothing to do with the country Poland.Nina Dobrev is exactly the opposite case-she is born in Bulgaria and related to this country. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

MOSBIO says that ethnicity can be emphasized in the opening if it is relevant to the subject's notability.Yes it is relevant, Nina stars as Katherine Pierce(Katerina Petrova) on The CW American television teen drama "The Vampire Diaries".Katherine Pierce was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity.Some of the events in The Vampire Diaries take place in Nina's native country Bulgaria like Season 2 Episode 9 where we see in the opening scene, Katherine Pierce giving birth in the year 1492 in Bulgaria and talking in bulgarian language with her family.Clearly Nina's ethnicity helped her with the role of Katherine Pierce who became the only Bulgarian character on American television.This is an interview with Nina Dobrev made by Sara Bibel: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ Sara Bibel asked Nina:"Did the writers make Katherine Bulgarian because you were born in Bulgaria?" Nina replied:"In the books, Katherine comes from a German heritage. It may be because I’m Bulgarian, but I think we all agreed that Bulgaria has a sense of mystique that is strangely unique. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that I already speak Bulgarian. The writers heard me speaking Bulgarian to my mom on the phone while I was on set one day. One thing led to the other and voila!" --Dvrt09 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

her candianness and her bulgarianness are not equal. and so, to solve the problem one needs to mention what it is about each, since the single word canadian and single word bulgarian are not sufficient, even if combined like canadian/bulgarian, which would imply equality (citizenship, country of birth, where she grew up, went to school, etc.). so, something like Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, or in reverse, would be fine, and appropriate based on RS and all other policies. Soosim (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Her canadianness is only her citizenship.Her Bulgarianness is her Country of origin,DNA,family and relatives:)You can change your citizenship whenever you want but you can't change your origin and DNA:))Once born Bulgarian, always Bulgarian:))Anyway what do you think about "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship", "Bulgarian by birth with Canadian citizenship" or "Bulgarian by birth who is Canadian citizen"?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DNA? Seriously? As an argument on Wikipedia? Nah ... but it is a great argument not to call her Bulgarian when so expressed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - not sure about your pov use of 'only' (canandianness is only her citizenship). some people are very proud of their citizenship. and she left bulgaria at age two, right? so she might not even care about being bulgarian. of course, she says she is proud of that too. so, how about: "born in bulgaria and raised in canada". then later, we can say that is proud to be bulgarian and that is a canadian citizen. (we're talking about the lede, right?) Soosim (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Soosim Agree with your suggestion:))Yes, we are talking about the lead.About "canadian" as far as I know this term refers only to citizenship because there is no such thing as canadian ethnicity.And when I said DNA I was refering to ethnicity.Is DNA a forbidden word in wikipedia?!I am a new editor and I don't know all the wiki rules... --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations. There is simply no "Bulgarian" DNA; where would you like to draw the line, historically? Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) And if you look back even farther: would it be Thracian DNA then? Ethnicity simply does not equal DNA. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Of Course in general DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations.But the population of some european countries have specific Genetic markers,IGENEA for example make DNA maps based on country of origin. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And? That is a very unspecific remark, and no breaking news......and, btw, IGENEA just samples for region of origin (and uses the word "Urvolk" for associating it to tribes/people like Vikings, Celts etc.), all that only in the time spam 900BC to 900AD. Which is in itself no argument for a Bulgarian DNA, provided there are special markers inherent to Bulgarians. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Lectonar If you want we can continue our discussion on my talk page,because we will be offtopic if we continue here:))I would be happy to argue with you :))Regards --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You brought up the DNA for discussion, so this is not off-topic, and no, I do see no need for further "arguing". Someone will close this thread sooner or later (not me, btw), and will take into account the arguments as presented.Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I don't agree with you:)As i said some european countries have specific genetic markers... --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect What is this supposed to mean?!Is this how new editors are treated in wikipedia?!Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully follow Wiki-precepts about newcomers. That does not encompass, however, catering to those who believe there is a genetic nationality which can be ascribed to anyone. Including "some european countries have specific genetic markers." Collect (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I said that there is a genetic nationality.Yes according to dna labs some nationalities have specific genetic markers because their population is more homogenous for example countries like japan, china, russia etc.What is your problem really?!Anyway this is not the topic here... --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it appears to be precisely the topic - as to why it is "important" to you that she be labelled as "Bulgarian." China, by the way, has more than fifty "nationalities" and is certainly not as "homogeneous" as you appear to think. Wikipedia is not the place to promote "racial purity" as a "nationality" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a German I wanted to stay away from mentioning racial purity, out of reasons that should be obvious....but I feel I must concur with Collect here. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect So now you are putting words in my mouth?!Where did I said "racial purity"?!If you can't find these words in my posts,you should apologize!!I am sick and tired from the arrogant attitude from some editors towards me just because I am new!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith and even assume the assumption of good faith. You are trying to lift this to a level which has nothing to do with with the article or your edit-request; this is not personal, you know. Lectonar (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He(@Collect) made it personal!!If there is a little honor in him,he should apologize to me for accusing me of something that I never said!!Anyway I will not respond to other provocations... --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure whether to add this source or not,but finally I decided that it is better to be here.In a Funny or Die music video with Nick Braun called SPF, Nina Dobrev says again that she is Bulgarian and she even shows a map of her country Bulgaria.After the "The Vampire Diaries" where she plays the role of the Bulgarian lady Katherine Pierce, this music video again clearly shows that being Bulgarian is relevant to her notability and something important for her.This source is already used as a reference in her wiki page.Here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7r_mvVVg08 http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3d673108bf/spf-with-nina-dobrev --Dvrt09 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should also add ethnic category in the infobox as well since it is relevant to her notability and Nina also says herself that she is Bulgarian. --Dvrt09 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanad Rashed

Yesterday I PRODed Sanad Rashed as I could not find any reliable sources which supported the claims within the article, and it looked like the article itself was promotional in nature. Today I revisited the article and saw that it was previously deleted for the same concerns. I don't have access to the former article, but based on the AfD comments I suspect that the author re-created the same article with the same problems. I'm not sure what to do at this point, because I don't think another AfD is necessary, and if it is a recreation then I don't think we should have to wait a week. Please advise, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Speedy G4 apply? Or do you know that it is sufficiently different that it has to go to AfD again? Rklear (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea. This is my first encounter with this article, and I didn't know it was formally brought up for deletion until I proded the article. However I suspect that it isn't different enough. Another editor has removed the Prod, so I will probably bring it up for deletion if no one works on it for a few hours. I like to give a bit of time for the remover to prove their case before I bring it to AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have speedied as a G4; it was the same article. Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

K. P. Yohannan

K. P. Yohannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have concerns with the content on this page. Please check my User Talk page to see my discussion with the original editor. I have posted this here because there is unverified and potentially libelous information on this Biography. I believe the content should be removed and discussed in talk pages before being restored. My comments will be in italics below.

The missionary organisation has been surrounded by controversies events such as Kerala Government filing petition aganist K P Yohannan in High Court[7], - This source only states an allegation and the text here is misleading because it doesn't give any details in an effort to alter NPOV. This text clearly shows bias.

Kerala home minister had requested the help of central investigating agenies in tracking the money trail of Rs 1048 crores received by Gospel Of Asia[8], - this is hardly a "controversy" and looks like a routine audit according to the source. Also, how is this relevant to KP Yohannan. He may be the President, but I don't see how this should be in his biography section.

being accused of land grab [9], - it would be better to actually include details rather than saying something which means nothing

having a submission in the Kerala's High Court that the home department is investigating the functioning of Gospel For Asia[10], - once again, irrelevant in a biography on KP Yohannan

K P Yohannan is not a traditionaly ordained priest. He was paster and it was never occured in the history of any Christian organizations that a pastor was directly declared as a Bishop[11], - Reference doesn't state this

crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchace 2800 acres of land in Kerala. [12] - reference doesn't make this statement

On a case filed by the Government Of Kerala the High Court Of Kerala had ordered not to sell the land held by him or create any liability. [15] - hardly a reliable source of information for a Biography

LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with some editorialising issues and am looking at some of the other points. I may not get them all. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The English is so mangled and the controversy section so poorly put together, I don't have the head for it, I'm afraid. I've made a start, but I'll let someone else sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Could use assistance from experienced editors who may be able to reach a nuanced solution for fair coverage. :) I'm not able to help there, since I'm involved as an admin, but there's an RFC on the talk page now that is almost entirely populated by single-purpose editors - at least 12 as of this writing. (The other two are debatable, so I didn't flag them.) It seems quite likely that there is some external struggle being fought-out here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the “Controversies” section on the K. P. Yohannan page, as well as Gospel for Asia and Believers Church pages, particularly in the presentation of the material.

WP:SOAP clearly condemns “Scandal mongering,” specifically stating that “Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.”

I call into question the intent behind the “Controversies” section on the Believers Church page, as well as the K.P. Yohannan page. Particularly this sentence: “This move stunned the christian community as in a normal course only a priest can become a Bishop and Mr Yohannan was only a pastor.” The word “stunned” connotes opinion rather than objective fact (see WP:YESPOV, point 1), as well as the source that it cited continues in the same vein of presenting very little fact and more speculation about the motives of the individuals involved. There is also no source on the “normal course” described here to become a bishop. Given these facts, I believe this sentence falls short of the “especially high standard” for WP:BLP.

Given the weakness of the previous sentence, the next sentence can hardly be interpreted as an honest attempt at objective journalism, and seems to fall under the same category outlined in WP:SOAP. I would request that the editors reexamine the material presented here and duly consider the relevance of the “Controversies” section in these articles, based on weak sourcing and what appears “Scandal Mongering.”

Finally, according to WP:BLP, “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.”

If no conviction in court of law has ever been secured against K.P. Yohannan, why should the greater part of his biography be spent discussing poorly sourced allegations? This is particularly applicable in the Gospel for Asia page, where the Controversies section is in the same vein as the Believer’s Church and K.P. Yohannan pages.

I noticed these edits came from the same editor, which raises a red flag. Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this!

LivingIsSimple (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find a post addressing the allegations about the financial accusations on the Gospel for Asia page. This post contains a download to the affidavits from the government investigation, Case 20812, 2010, High Court of Kerala. Quote from section 15: "As per the returns and other records, the funds are utilized in the most appropriate manner and there is absolutely no chance of diversion of funds to any illegal purpose or there is any nexus with terrorists or fundamentalist groups as alleged in the said petition and those allegations are without any basis or data. As far as the present case, nothing has been found against the above trust."

Investigation Report from Home Ministry of India Government: Home Ministry Exonerates Believers Church

Direct download link to affidavits

LivingIsSimple (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Johanna Dejager et al

Since joining wikipedia last year, Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk · contribs) has created quite a few articles about, female bodybuilders. For example Johanna Dejager. Almost all of these articles have inadequate sourcing. While none of the ones I've reviewed have any defamatory content the notability seems thin in addition to the paucity of RS. I'd appreciate it if someone can examine this article (I already nominated Shelia Bleck for deletion, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support site ban for Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if someone wants to propose it.--В и к и T 08:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Steady on, that's a little extreme. Has anyone tried to discuss with them?--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Sure, Johanna Dejager seems to be written entirely from http://fibofoto.de/profiles/international/dejager/index.html which isn't the best source, but that doesn't make User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast a vandal, it merely makes them overenthusiastic. We can describe our article sourcing requirements, and have a good chance of having a fine, productive contributor. Meanwhile for the article itself - yes, I'm afraid I would support it being deleted for insufficient sourcing (essentially Wikipedia:Notability). --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone who creates Death by horse cock is probably not the type of editor we need around here. I'm starting to think that the body builder articles might be a False flag. If these shenanigans continue, I've an ANI post ready to submit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to draw attention to these bodybuilder BLPs some time ago, but with no success and I had too many other things going on to deal with it later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think creations by both this user and another likely related user, Fbb fan (talk · contribs), are rather alarming. None appear to be well-written or well-sourced. Nearly everything should go for lack of sourcing in the article and lack of coverage otherwise AFAICT. JFHJr (㊟) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanjeev Nanda‎

Need some additional eyes on this. A guy who almost got away with using money and power to influence the legal system, but someone(s) still think that that wasnt enough and that the wikipedia article needs to carry on the crusade for the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to something else, since it's not a bio. And then reworded, and sourced properly. Do we even know if this meets WP:GNG? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Barak Missle section even relevant? Most of the text doesn't even mention him. The sources only give passing mention. WP:COAT much? JFHJr (㊟) 13:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris Cutrone

Chris Cutrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cutrone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this person is not notable in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.14.59 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We're only interested in if he's notable in the Wikipedia way. If you believe he's not, you'll probably need to start at WP:BEFORE. In the meantime, I've added two templates to the article indicating the current issues with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed

Tucker Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker Reed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Material is being repeatedly inserted about a sexual assault accusation. The sources are all social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs. Wikipedia is being used to promote external websites which detail this unfounded allegation of sexual assault. MisTemPest (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the link to the subject's article, and the reference to the magazine. The first one because it's a primary source. The second one, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a rape accusation is indeed an extraordinary claim. Unless there are multiple, reliable sources that have covered this, we can include the coverage, but not the direct accusation by the subject. WP:BLP applies to all people mentioned directly or indirectly on Wikipedia articles, and that includes the person Mrs. Reed is accusing of having assaulted her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited. Other contributor attempting to preclude information regarding current contentious factual situation. Biased trolls IP address needs to be noted and blocked by Admin from further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MisTemPest is a biased user and is relentlessly trying to erase links to reliable websites that contain information regarding an important fact about Ms. Reed's life. To delete it would be to withhold information from wikipedia's encyclopedic community -- Ms. Magazine is credited as a source in many wikipedia pages. This information adhere's to wikipedias core content policies; it is neutral in tone, verifiably coming from a sound source, and is not an original research allegation. _______________________

FreeRangeFrog, the material you wish to delete from Reed's article (the "Challenged Material") is an extended reference to Miss Reed's body of work -- her writings. Since it merely identifies Reed's work, it certainly does not need any citation support beyond the fact of the writings themselves. It states as follows:

A self-identified sexual assault survivor, Reed authors the blog "Covered In Band-Aids," a collection of essays exploring "the assaulted woman’s life before, during and after her assault." Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]

All of this merely identifies the corpus of Reed's work. It is no less factual than identifying Reed's trilogy for young adults. You should further note that the Challenged Material makes no reference to a specific person -- does not identify a rapist -- and is not offered for this purpose. Indeed, the references to Reed's work accurately uses the phrase "alleged rapist", which fairly indicates that the man was not (yet) convicted of a crime. Instead, the Challenged Material has been offered to show how Reed is using her voice and writing skills. It is as if you are trying to delete the title of a book she wrote because the content of the book contains material objectionable to, say, a religious extremist. Your censoring of Reed's bio at the behest of this man furthers his efforts to silence Reed, and it is ill-founded and not in accordance with the standards promulgated by Wiki.

Please tell me exactly what in the Challenged Material requires citation support, when the mere fact of its existence is all that is being referenced. I believe your support of MisTemPest is ill-founded and misguided, and based on an emotional response to the content of Reed's blog, not the content of her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs (such as, Ms. magazine blog) are NOT reliable sources. "Ms. Magazine blog" is not subject to the same standards as "Ms. Magazine", and the blog even has the disclaimer that all blog content is the opinion of the writer not the editors. The writer of the Ms. Magazine blog article is a student at the same university as the subject of the article. MisTemPest (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations as well as to outright statements that someone has committed a crime. "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Just because the source uses the phrase "alleged rapist" rather than "rapist" to describe a person doesn't make it permissible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.

You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.

The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?

Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. 140.211.172.23 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the individual can or cannot sue Reed, Wikipedia cannot be the conduit for allegations about anything. The subject's blog specifically named the alleged attacker, and it even included photographs. Beyond that, if the subject is not notable, then it becomes an issue of the article being merely promotional, and that's why it is now at WP:AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your multiple submissions [25][26][27], but your walls of text are excessive. Here is some general advice that applies to this situation:

1. Text should be supported by citations to secondary sources, avoiding excessive reliance on primary sources. See also specific rules regarding self-publications and claims made by the subject regarding the subject.

2. Linking to Amazon is discouraged because it is a sales site and contains user-generated content. Very little is actually reliable, notability-wise.

3. If you think there are reliable third-party publications giving significant coverage to this subject, then add them to the article. So far, I haven't found any.

4. If you think this person is notable in Wikipedia terms according to those sources, please have a read at basic notability criteria for living persons, as well as special criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Then, comment at the deletion discussion.

5. If you think the book is notable, then vote for a redirect or rename at the deletion discussion.

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings (again)

Could I ask those familiar with policy, particularly WP:BLPCRIME to keep an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article, as we have at least one contributor arguing that policy (specifically "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law") does not apply if we have a reliable source that says that third parties (in this case, unnamed "U.S. officials") have witnessed a confession by the accused - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, we clearly have an obligation to refer to the alleged perpetrator as just that - or as a suspect - until a court determines otherwise. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not determine innocence or guilt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• When looking at this, it is important to be clear about an important distinction. On the one hand, we have someone admitted to committing an act (a bombing). The act, in and of itself, is not a crime, and therefore that admission is not an admission to a crime, and blpcrime does not apply.

On the other hand, we have a specific criminal charge. That does fall under blpcrime. And an admission to comitting the act is not tantamount to a guilty plea. That is all discussed in greater detail at the above link that Andy provided.Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You may kill me. That would be an act. But it would not be a crime per se.

Why? Because you would have various defenses, including self-defense and insanity.

If you admit to killing me, you have not admitted to a crime. You are still innocent of a crime until proven guilty. But you have killed me.

Under our policy, you could properly (as you admitted) be reflected as having killed me. But it would not be proper to say you have murdered me. You would be an alleged murderer, still.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer round policy just because you don't like it. We cannot state that the alleged bomber carried out criminal acts. Only that he is alleged to, or suspected of carrying out such acts. That is policy. It isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand. The person has not committed a crime if they have committed the act, but have a viable defense. This is an elementary aspect of criminal law.

If you say you killed someone, that act is not criminal. In and of itself. You may be innocent of any crime, due to any of a number of defenses. As I already pointed out to you. Twice.

It is not wikilawyering to actually read the policy. And follow it. BLP:crime says:

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.... .... BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."

And WP:WELLKNOWN says:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.... 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."

Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? Of course we can say that the alleged bomber is an 'alleged bomber'. What is being argued is that we can drop the 'alleged' bit, and say that he did it. That is a clear violation of policy. And no, it doesn't just apply to 'low-profile individuals', no matter how much you try to misrepresent it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note. If there is any suggestion that we should assume that WP:BLPCRIME policy is not sufficient to ensure that Wikipedia articles adhere to the presumption of innocence standards implied by the first sentence (i.e. "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"), I shall have no hesitation in contacting the WMF, given the possible legal ramifications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say this before you get it. But I will try again. Perhaps I've been unclear.

Crimes have elements, quite often. See Element (criminal law). The act itself is only one of the elements. Such is the case here. If you commit the act (killing, hitting, bombing) you have not necessarily committed a crime. If you admit to committing the act, you have not admitted committing the crime. You are still innocent of the crime. If you admit the act and we reflect it, we have not stated that you committed a crime.

In contrast, murder and rape and battery, for example, are crimes. Not just acts. Crimes. To report that you are a murderer, or rapist, or committed battery, we need (in those cases where blpcrime applies) for you to have been convicted of such (if you are alive).

Is that clearer? Really, this is crim law 101. Just look at the page murder and read the section on mitigating circumstances if I am still not clarifying for you the difference between the act (killing) and being guilty of the crime.

Also, please confirm for me your understanding of what I quoted to you above, from blpcrime, to the effect that the appropriate policy here is wp:wellknown, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in your fatuous Wikilawyering WP:OR irrelevances. If you violate WP:BLP policy by stating that the individuals concerned committed criminal acts, I will revert you. If you persist, I will report you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've quoted the policy to you. I've sought to explain. I've shared links to help you understand what I am saying. You seem to be conflating an element of crime with the crime itself. You seem not to be reading the policy, and not to be reading the footnote I quoted to you. I'm following wp policy to the letter. You, in response, are spewing works like "bollacks," and not engaging in any thoughtful analytical response to the policy quoted or examples and explanation given. I don't seem to have been able to communicate in a manner that you understand. And for that, I apologize. Nobody is saying that alleged murderers should be called murderers without having been convicted of murder. But you seem not to understand what I've sought to communicate. If you wish to involve the WMF, as you suggested, perhaps they can better communicate with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your 'examples' are irrelevant, and seem designed to confuse the issue. The specific question was whether we should continue to refer to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as 'a suspect' or 'the accused', based on claimed confessions. This seems simple enough, without inventing fancy hypothetical scenarios involving other circumstances entirely. As for WMF involvement, if we are going to ignore the presumption of innocence as required in WP:BLPCRIME on the basis that "someone is notable so it doesn't apply", as you seem to be suggesting, I'm sure they will have to step in soon enough. Hopefully though, we can get a little input from people less keen on filling this page with irrelevances, and sticking to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• In spite of the fact that there has been some spirited discussions regarding this article, Most of the editors are extremely well behaved with regard to their editing of the article. I doubt if there is an editor at all who has not seen at least one of there own edits reverted or removed. Yet there hasn't been anything remotely close to an edit war; just some spirited discussion, at times. I have high confidence that the article's integrity will be upheld to a high standard and remain in accordance with all relevant policy, pillar, and guideline. My76Strat (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also draw a distinction between admission of taking an criminal act and pleading guilty to a specific charge. The "suspect" has now told the carjack vic and law enforcement that they did the bombings and killed the MIT officer. His wounding and capture in the manhunt is 110% proof he was in the police shootout. He even has stated reasons for the bombing (reasons much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad). If someone claims responsibility for an act and that comes from RS we no longer need to dance around words like Suspect or Alleged or Accused as they apply to the acts. We only might need these words in relation to the actual criminal charge.

There is overwhelming evidence these guys did the bombing and the live brother admits it and says why he did it. We do not need to wait for a conviction before accepting him at his word that he is the bomber and just saying that he is the bomber.

There is also the suggestion we can't rely on what the Washington Post and Boston Globe say that law enforcement told them. If we toss out every RS just because we don't like the report, and yet we can't do OR like going to the hospital and asking him ourselves, how are we supposed to write anything?

Now for the dead brother - we can and should say he is the bomber based on his admissions to the carjack guy and the other evidence. There is no way he is protected by "presumed innocent until convicted" because he is dead and will never be charged or convicted. Here are a couple high profile examples of people who did not confess, but died in the act like the older brother, and what Wikipedia says right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta "was an Egyptian hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks who served as the hijacker-pilot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri was one of five hijackers...

Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. It isn't for us to decide what is 'overwhelming evidence'. I can see that this is going to need admin attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't really use the 911 hijackers or even Lee Harvey Oswald because of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. See if you can find an example that didn't result in a congressional commission to determine their guilt. Perhaps there will be one for this event. Otherwise it is simply best to just state the facts. My76Strat (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I hate all this "the media reports this, the media reports that" nonsense. This is not a news site; we should simply report what is, and is not, the case. At this point he hasn't stood trial or been convicted of anything. He hasn't even pleaded guilty in a court. Until those things happen he's still a suspect, and that's what we should say. It's not unheard of for people to confess to a crime out of court and ultimately be found not guilty (he could be insane and have imagined the whole thing for example). I'm not saying that this is likely, but as an encyclopaedia we should be documenting hard facts, and "media says this, tabloid says that" is not hard facts. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that someone committed a bombing is, by any common sense standards, saying that they committed a crime. It is true that technically, that is not saying they committed a crime, because it is possible to commit a bombing and be not guilty of an actual crime for various reasons, but if you're going to interpret the policy that way, it would be meaningless. We wouldn't have to worry about saying that any person killed any other person, because after all, there are circumstances where killing someone isn't a crime so we're not accusing them of a crime. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Reporting that someone committed a bombing is certainly not saying that they committed a crime. They are not guilty of a crime for having done so. They may have defenses -- for example, duress or entrapment (which is a common defense for bombings). Anyone who says "because he admitted committing the bombing, he committed a crime" would be flatly incorrect. So, just because someone admits committing an act, while we can report it, we have to be very careful not to report that they committed a crime.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the argument that people sometimes confess to things they didn't do is overwhelming. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who has explicitly not been read his Miranda rights and is lying in a hospital bed, confesses to anything at all... this means nothing other than that he confessed under duress. There are many, many cases of people under duress confessing to things they didn't do. Heck, there are many, many cases of people confessing to things they didn't do, not under duress, just because they wanted some attention. Just because he was there at the same time as his brother is not a conviction. Unless and until he is convicted, Dzokhar remains a suspect. --Merlinme (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a straightforward issue: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not been found guilty in a court of law, and is therefore a suspect. Wikipedia does not lose anything or distort the truth in stating as much, and does not convict people in place of courts. One could argue many points in addition: that for obvious reasons he is the principle suspect; that reliable sources have heard from Federal officials that he confessed; that he was for a time semi-conscious and cannot speak; that he wasn't initially read his miranda rights or offered counsel. But as far as "suspect" is concerned, our course is clear here. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kevin Curtis

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.

---

I do believe there is an element of BLP in violation regarding Paul Kevin Curtis. The redirect should be deleted, and serious consideration should be given to removing his name entirely from in the 2013 ricin letters article. It is just as encyclopedic to say "a man was arrested, but the charges were dropped" as it is to name the person who is otherwise not known and entitled to privacy, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made some appropriate corrections, hopefully they will not be reverted. I'll be looking to replace references where I can maintain the articles verifiability without using the ones that gratuitously plaster this man's name across their headlines or throughout their context. Help is welcome. My76Strat (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus reached at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 23#Paul Kevin Curtis, the redirect page has been deleted and SALTed.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with the good faith handling of this. I'd add that at least one diff was revdeleted to remove the persons name. I am not against that, nor would I be if it was done here. My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (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.

Naomi (pornographic actress)

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.

---

Please review this diff and, if appropriate "unhide" the material I've hidden. I do not know when we can rely on a twitter feed that is verified to belong to the subject. I know there IS a rule, but I don't know what it is. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Verified by Twitter have a blue checkmark like: https://twitter.com/TheRealDaphne --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about using selfpublished sources for content in articles - usually it's a no, but there are exceptions - but in this case it's not being used as a source, per se; more like an external link. I don't know of any formalised enwiki process on deciding whether a twitter feed is "official". If an account's been verified at Twitter's end, that's good enough for me, but this one doesn't seem to be. Her twitter feed looks plausible to me, but I'm not an expert on identifying pornstars. If anybody else can bring some other convincing reason to believe that it's real, we should be open to that... bobrayner (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not her. She has long exited the business. That account is probably run by the same person that operates naomirussellxxx.com, which is not her "official" site. One good way to ascertain whether a twitter is legitimate for porn stars is to look for posts of current photos of their day to day lives. That account has none. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. The specific issue is resolved, and I've got food for thought about the more generic issue, both as to porn actors specifically and for twitter in general. Here's another thing I don't know how to do: seal this box up as resolved. If someone else will do that, I'll take the BLP/N notice off the talk page thereafter. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2013 (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.

Brinda Somaya

This article is an advertisement with a single reference to a commercial website belonging to the person. Article must be deleted to meet Wikipedia standards of non-commercial and neutral articles written with verifiable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Somaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.51.195 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are free to request deletion at articles for deletion, following the outlined procedure. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Judith Miller

Judging from comments on the talk page, it appears that the article on American journalist Judith Miller contains a signifiant amount of controversial and potentially libelous material. Unfortunately I myself am not available to edit it at this time, but something ought to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhof (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of article to go through. At first glance I don't see anything that could be a blatant issue, but maybe you could help us out and tell us what you think the issue is. Aside from some "she said he said" paragraphs that could be pruned I don't see anything truly problematic from a BLP perspective. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim

The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, totally violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.

Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":

ONE: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]

This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.

TWO: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]

Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A

THREE: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]

Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.

FOUR: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.

Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

FIVE: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded: ...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]

This goes to the hate smearing sit Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!

SIX: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing: Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]

Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he says that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.

I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous and slanderous text

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity99 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have locked the article for 5 days because of the current edit war and the previous one. There are also BLP issues involved with the material that must be worked out before any further editing may be done in this area once the lock has expired. In this earlier report at ANEW I made some comments about the BLP issues, although without much specificity.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ulf Ekberg

Ulf Ekberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to this article, there's a lot of possibly false information floating around the internet about this musician and his alleged but possibly non-existent neo-Nazi activities. Our article does nothing to clarify this issue and repeats some allegations as fact. Better sources and BLP-aware editors are needed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Joel Grey's date of birth and marriage date

Joel Grey may have been born in 1951 but he sure wasn't married at age 7 in 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.127.20.211 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says Joel Grey was born in 1932. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Movladi Atlangeriyev

Movladi Atlangeriyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article tells us that Atlangeriyev is 'reputedly' this, is 'perhaps' that and 'reportedly' did something else - all alleged criminal behaviour. Or rather, it did. I've blanked it as a blatant WP:BLP violation. Since when has an article consisting entirely of allegations, none of which the sources appear to be willing to confirm outright, been a legitimate Wikipedia biography? If Atlangeriyev is notable, he is presumably notable for something other than unsubstantiated allegations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you're not a newb, ffs, use the {{la}} template, or at least the [[]] brackets to wikilink it (or maybe you're not Andy? cue wierd sounding music). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yes it is/was Andy, total bullshit WEASEL article, either needs some RS or deleting (and probably salting, fan club phenomena). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was in a bit of a rush, and probably could have handled it better. And yes, it is me (but then I would say that, wouldn't I...). As for weasels, the article seemed to consist of little else, other than a nice bit of insinuation about 'an ethnic Chechen man known as "Mr. A"' being deported. Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanked, deleted, restored, blankeked, CSD(A3) request, AfD or salt or what , this is pure BLPjuice BS? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Michele (Mica) Mosbacher

• Michele (Mica) Mosbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Newtononeill (talk · contribs)

Written as a puff piece by a conflict of interest account, presumably [28]. I've done minimal copy editing to this unsourced press release, but welcome further attention. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple, Wikipedia:Blpprod, wait and see. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Selmo Cikotic

Selmo Cikotic is no longer the Defence Minister of BiH. The current minister is Zekarijah Mevludin Osmic, according to the Ministry's web site: http://www.mod.gov.ba/MO_BiH/Struktura/ministar_odbrane/default.aspx?id=21760

So help us out and amend the article to reflect that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos of private people doing things they might be embarrassed about later

• Article: Exhibitionism
• Talk page thread: Talk:Exhibitionism#Image at top of page

I'd like an opinion regarding the privacy of a non-Wikipedian, so I'm posting here even though this isn't an actual biography of a person.

Say Commons has a correctly-licensed picture of someone where (a) they are not a public person; i.e. they aren't "notable", not in the public eye, however you want to define it; (b) the person's face is clearly visible, so they could be easily identified in real life as the person in the image; (c) we have no reason to think that they would give permission to use their image in something as public as an encyclopedia article; (d) they are not an incidental part of the picture, they are the main subject of the picture, and (e) the picture is of them doing something that they would possibly find embarrassing later in life, either the morning after or a few years down the road (in the particular case that got me involved, a young woman flashing the crowd at Mardi Gras, but I'm more interested in the general case).

Should we use an image like this in an article? I believe, if all five of these things are true, the answer should definitely be "no"; this is not how humans treat other humans. We shouldn't be taking the approach "Well she should have thought of that beforehand".

I would also have concerns if some more of the things above weren't true - for example, what if all that were true except it wasn't embarrassing, or they weren't the main subject of the picture. Or as another example, is this even legal without a release from the subject of the photo? I'm not even going to touch whether Commons should host the image, whether or not we use it in an article. But I think it would be difficult finding a consensus on all those questions, and I don't want a whole sprawling discussion that ends up as "no consensus", so I'd like to try to keep it focused just on the case with conditions (a) thru (e) for now, and maybe follow up on other more complicated issues after that, either here or somewhere more appropriate.

One more thing: to head one thing off at the pass: This is not a "NOTCENSORED" argument, and I'm going to get really depressed if someone trots that out. If I had reason to think that the person in the photo is OK with this being in an article, I would not be trying to remove it. I've left a different photo in that article because the person's face couldn't be easily identified. This is a question about how we treat a person, not about prudishness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your points above. It seems to me that what you're asking for is little more than reasonable adult behaviour. I've no idea if this legal case has any formal relevance, but it seems to me pertinent to point it out.

I also agree that NOTCENSORED is depressingly misused in cases like this - we also have WP:GRATUITOUS. Particularly when - as seems likely in practically all such situations - it is possible to make the same point without using potentially damaging material (i.e. that doesn't fail when compared to your (a) through (e)) then we should never be using the more potentially questionable material. Kahastok talk 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The title of this section refers to "people doing embarrassing things". I don't see any sign that the person in the photograph motivating this discussion is embarrassed. I could understand the concern being raised if the situation were somehow accidental ("nipple slip"), but that's clearly not what is going on here. I understand that the question has been raised "in general", and I agree that we ought not violate people's privacy by exposing them in ways they did not intend. But this woman clearly intended to expose her breasts in public. Some individuals discussing here might feel embarrassment at the thought of exposing their own breasts in public, but I don't think we have reason to project those feelings onto someone else. The article in question is "exhibitionism": some people embrace it, something evidently demonstrated in the photo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

She was obvious not embarrassed at the moment the picture was taken. I even concede she probably knew some tourists were taking pictures. What I doubt she knew is that it would end up plastered on a high viewership website, and she would be singled out. It's certainly possible she still feels no embarrassment, but knowing what I know about most people, it's not likely she still feels no embarrassment. That's not projecting my feelings onto her; that's projecting what in all honesty is what most people's feeling would be onto her, in the absence of better information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But doesn't that view imply that "exhibitionism" doesn't really exist? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're saying (particularly with your last sentence two posts above, 20:19) is that anytime someone exposes their "private parts" in public we should assume that they will end up feeling embarrassed about it. That's the opposite of exhibitionism: exhibitionism is the practice of voluntarily exposing oneself (typically for pleasure of some sort). It seems you're suggesting that people don't actually expose themselves voluntarily for pleasure -- instead, they feel embarrassed by it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That has naught to do with either the legality or propriety of placing such images on Wikipedia. Clearly the consensus here is that recognizable images of people ought not be used. Collect (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Ah, OK. No, I'm not saying there's no such thing as an exhibitionist, just that they aren't nearly as common as people who do something like this without thinking it through (and probably 90% of the time drunk), and then regret it later. I think we should assume they'll feel embarrassed about it later, unless there is evidence to the contrary; the default assumption should not be that they are exhibitionists. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Floquenbeam's points, and framing this as a living-person privacy issue, not a censorship issue. This kind of thing will get even more problematic as the technology improves for searching the Internet via face-recognition programs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well. The moment you use an image that can be used to identify a person, the article becomes about that person and not about the topic it's supposed to be covering. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• nuke it now It's so obviously a BLP violation that I don't know why we even need to discuss it. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If it was "obviously a BLP violation" then there would be no good faith arguments to keep it. Such arguments have been made, therefore it is not "obvious". Indeed, I don't see what the BLP issues arise from a photograph taken in a public place of a subject who obviously knows they are being photographed. Whether someone else feels that the subject should be embarrassed by what they did is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There are always people who refuse to see the obvious. Rd232 has it right: it's not reasonable to assume a young woman (in a context where inebriation is hardly unlikely) has consented for all time to be made the official representative of exhibitionism. We shouldn't be turning her into a public figure of potential and perpetual embarrassment; the fact that she didn't feel embarrassed then is not excuse for us to take advantage of an injudicious act and use her reputation for our own benefit. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And there are people who are so full of themselves that they think "it's obvious" is the ultimate trump in a debate. Both sides make good arguments, but yours is not helped by behaving in such an arrogant fashion. Resolute 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The feeling I'm having here is anger at all the people who don't care about the injury to this woman that they are advocating in the name of "she volunteered for us to take advantage of her." Well, and I feel dismay. Since we are apparently free to infer intent I feel free to impute to you refusal to admit your moral culpability under the guise of misrepresenting my use of a word. Surely nobody is stupid enough to think that "obvious" or for that matter anything short of a box around the debate and then archiving is sufficient to close off debate. I used the word precisely because I think it is obvious that increasing the promulgation of the image has the potential for harm. I don't think people don't notice she can be harmed; the reading I get in the arguments (and even more so in the far more reprehensible Commons discussion) is that everyone does see that she is harmed by increasing promulgation, but that most people don't care if they hurt her by doing so. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are three different issues here:

1. A photograph of a living person (ignoring status of dress or undress or embarrassing act), absolutely in the UK, and 0.95 probability in the EC, is personal data within the meaning of the various European pieces of enabling legislation for Data Privacy Directive number {some number or other}, and may not lawfully be used without the consent of the individual in that picture if the subject is a under local legal jurisdiction and the organisation which uses the picture is subject to local legislation. WMF is subject to that jurisdiction on some EC nations. Other nations have different legislation.
2. I am not altogether certain what "Embarrassing things" are. The definition is imprecise. I have no concerns about my anatomy being on display online.
3. To be suitable for display at all the picture must be licenced correctly by the copyright owner.

So this gets complex. Item 1 is a legal issue. For this the legal team must give an opinion. It is not a community issue since it may result in a problem for WMF. The community often disregards laws of which it is ignorant or which it wishes would go away. That is appalling and must be remedied, but it is an Office action to remedy it.

Item 2 is a matter of taste. It is either tasteful or not, and that is with regard to its context in the article. Gratuitous decoration of any article with a load of images is frowned upon. This is the same whatever the image. That it may be of a personal displaying body parts most commonly covered is not relevant at all. There is a censorship issue here, whatever the introduction says. However it is not an issue of "The image must not be removed because that would be censorship." If the image adds value to the article then removal is a form of censorship. If it adds no value then that is a form of editing. I applaud good editing and I deplore censorship. So I am not in favour of gratuitous removal of a picture, nor am I in favour of gratuitous addition of one.

Item 3 is a legal issue. It is either correctly licenced and should remain and be used wisely in articles or is not and should go.

The whole is complicated further by BLP issues. Broadly, those issues are handled in laws like the UK's Data Protection Act 1998 and in similar EC and other legislation. WMF and thus WIkipedia is subject to some of these laws despite being US headquartered.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is an easy call based on Floquenbeam's description of the image (although there will always be more difficult or borderline cases). Based on the situation described in the top of the thread, the image should not be used on Wikipedia. I see this as a significant ethical issue, and am not even going to get into the potential legal aspects, which however are nontrivial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• This precisely. Speaking from the perspective of someone with a fair amount of media law training, at least in the United States it would be technically legal to publish the picture. However, our editing standards have never been "we will publish anything that is legal." Selective, sensitive and common-sense editorial policies are not censorship, and given that we have a perfectly good alternative picture that well-illustrates the subject without identifying a person, I see absolutely no reason that we should use it. polarscribe (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Floquenbeam's description is far from a neutral presentation of the facts. I see no reasons we should not use an image like this if it best illustrates the topic. Wikipedia is not censored, so the only question that matters is what it is in fact the best image we have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Some facts for clarity:
  • The image under discussion here is File:Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg.
  • It has been nominated for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg (currently 5-2 keep-delete, although it is obviously not a vote).
    • Update:the image was kept as within scope, legal and presenting no problems regarding photos of identifiable people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The file is sourced from flickr and licensed cc-by-sa-2.0. The license has been verified by Commons users.
  • Wikipedia follows the laws of the United States, specifically the law of Florida (where it is hosted), under those laws it is legal to take and to use photos of people taken in a place where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • There are no legal reasons why this image cannot be used on Wikipedia.
  • The image at the top of the Exhibition article has been changed to File:Budapest girl.jpg because at least one editor feels it better illustrates the topic of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Its legality notwithstanding, Wikipedia's policy has never been "whatever is legal is suitable for the encyclopedia." It was perfectly legal for Reddit to host wild speculation about the identity of the Boston Marathon bombers and allow users to post outlandish, terribly-wrong theories as to who was responsible. That does not mean it was right for them to do so. polarscribe (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I brought up the legality as it mentioned above, but because Wikipedia is not censored the policy is "whatever is legal is suitable for the encyclopaedia", i.e. it can be used in the encyclopaedia. That does not mean that the image is suitable for every article, or that it is the best image for every article it is suitable for. Specifically this image is suitable for the Exhibitionism article because it is legal and illustrates exhibitionism, but that does not mean it is the most suitable image or that there are no better images available. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Again, not true. There are plenty of things which might be legal that cannot be used in the encyclopedia because of our own policies. NOTCENSORED is not a license to include anything and everything. I gave the example above of speculation about the identity of a criminal suspect. That might be perfectly legal under United States law, but it has no place in the encyclopedia because it violates other core content policies. As NOTCENSORED itself states: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)... will also be removed." polarscribe (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes there are things that are legal but not encyclopaedic, but the point of NOTCENSORED is that everything that is legal can be considered for inclusion in the encyclopaedia on equal terms. For images the sole relevant question is whether that image is the best illustration of the topic - an image that would be a BLP violation in that context would obviously not be the best illustration. In this specific case though I am not seeing any BLP violations and so that isn't a factor in determining whether this is the best illustration of Exhibitionism. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like an open and shut BLP case to me, unless we can find the woman in question and she says it's okay. It's a little like reposting a non-famous person's name here on Wikipedia after it's been printed in a local police blotter. If this were a photo of a car accident victim, drunk, or a text description of these or any of a number of other things, same concern. We're taking a publicly accessible but not widely known potentially embarrassing fact about someone, and spreading it for hundreds of thousands of people to see, likely including the girl herself, her friends and family, etc. There's been a lot in the news about bullying, people sending naked pictures of others around in order to shame them, and all the mental trauma that creates. We can assume that if this girl's coworkers or classmates or neighbors find the image they'll be doing the same thing. Yes, she voluntarily did it in public and who knows if she cares? But same thing if we showed a photo of a guy who peed on himself in an article about bladder control. There is no encyclopedic reason why we have to use someone who is so clearly identifiable here, so it's gratuitous harm. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Private citizens have zero expectation of privacy while in public. Any person can have their picture taken on the street, or visible from the street, and that picture can legally be published, with no problem of personality rights. That is black letter law in the United States. That someone has exposed a part of their body normally kept private makes absolutely no difference, there is still no expectation of privacy, and we break no moral or ethical code by publishing the photo. In fact, one can make the case that my deliberately and freely exposing her breasts, the subject has invited attention, and has even less expectation of privacy than a person strolling down the street.

    To frame this as a BLP problem make little or no sense. The exposure is a fact, it was clearly done freely and not under duress, in a public place. The law is clearly on our side, and there is no real BLP reason for not publishing. It is neither our job nor our responsibility to protect people from their own actions, and to speculate that the person may now or in the future might possibly be embarasssed by their actions is to impose on someone else one's own moral sensibility. That is clearly a violation of NPOV, as we do not edit using our own POV as a reference point, which is essentially what Floquenbeam wants to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

    • Once again, you're not addressing the question. I am not doubting its legality as a matter of law. What I am doubting is whether we, as an encyclopedia, should be in the business of posting for the entire world for all eternity an embarrassing and potentially-damaging picture of an otherwise-anonymous person. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored is not license to put anything and everything up willy-nilly. We can and should afford to be sensitive and thoughtful about what we publish, particularly what we publish about non-public figures who have not invited themselves to become a permanent part of an encyclopedia article.
    • Not one person has yet attempted to rebut or deal with this argument - the image's defenders are simply assuming that we should not care about this person because she probably can't sue us. That kind of thinking is not humane and ignores the fact that public sentiment is not limited to that which may be illegal. Editorial discretion is not censorship. The community decides all the time what it will publish and what it won't. polarscribe (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2013 (UT)
      • I would further note that this issue would be solved by simply finding an exhibitionist who is explicitly and affirmatively willing to be used in a picture for Wikipedia. I can't imagine it would be super-difficult. polarscribe (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• BLP implies that an identifiable image of a non-notable person should be used only with great care. The questions "is the image legal?" (yes), and "is removing it censorship?" (no) are not relevant as we are considering whether to use a certain image in a certain article which is a question of editorial judgment. There is no reason to assume the woman knew that a picture of her would be taken, and it is obvious that there was no consent for such a picture to be used as a defining illustration of exhibitionism (the argument "it's legal, we don't need consent" is not relevant as the question being asked concerns editorial judgment—given an image of a non-consenting person, should that image be used to define "exhibitionism" in an encyclopedia?). My judgment is that any picture should be of a non-identifiable person, or should be accompanied with consent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• I share the concerns of Floquenbeam, and strongly endorse the comments of Newyorkbrad and Polarscribe. There is simply no reason to use this particular photo; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "Girls Gone Wild." Regardless of the legal niceties in particular American or European jurisdictions, I might also add that even the "Girls Gone Wild" producers have the good sense to get an all-encompassing legal release from their photo and video subjects before publishing clearly recognizable private citizens in various states of nakedness. In short, there is no encyclopedic reason to use this particular photo of a clearly recognizable person. It's time to exercise some editorial discretion as if we were a professional publication, not a group of volunteers rattling on about "censorship." Censorship is not the issue; editorial judgment and potential liability are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yank the picture. I have no doubts about the legality of it. But legal does not make it necessary, right, or over-ride BLP concerns. This is a non-notable person plastered over one of the most viewed websites in the world. Hiding behind 'oh but its totally legal' is a cowardly way to defer personal responsibility for one's actions. In this case the action of potentially humiliating another human being for no good reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why, objectively, is this picture more potentially humiliating than any other photo of an identifiable person? Where is your evidence that this subject considers this humiliating? Given that this picture is clearly a picture of exhibitionism there is encyclopaedic justification to use it in the exhibitionism article - that doesn't mean that it's the right picture to use editorially, but that question is one for editors on the article talk page. The question for this board is whether it is a BLP violation to show a picture of an adult voluntarily engaging in a legal activity in a public place while fully aware that they are being photographed? Honestly I don't see how it can be without projecting one's morals onto the subject - which is something that Wikipedia does not do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove photo from article. Yes the photo (and especially the File:Showing_breasts_in_New_Orleans.jpg variant, with photographer in shot) are actually good illustrations of exhibitionism. And yes, it's entirely possible that the subject would beam with pride if she found out her image was used in this way. But being used as a prominent emblem of "exhibitionism" is quite different from consenting to be photographed or videoed for Girls Gone Wild, I think, and I don't think we can assume so. Ergo, editorial caution should apply, and the photo not used. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• The picture should be pulled and not used. Such pictures should only be used with the consent of those being photographed. There are plenty of people who would consent to such photographs being used, so why are people insisting on using this image where no consent has been granted? More generally, how should such articles be illustrated? Stop a moment and think about how a reputable encyclopedia would illustrate an article on exhibitionism, if at all. Some encyclopedias might not even have an article on exhibitionism, but might cover that topic in a subsection of a larger article. And even if they did have an article, they might choose not to have an image to illustrate it. The whole mindset that we need to have pictures to illustrate certain topics is wrong. Often a verbal description is sufficient. And even if images are requested, you need to be be able to say with 100% certainty that what is being shown is exhibitionism. This is one of those situations where pictures need to come from a reputable source, such an established archive with picture information that states unequivocally what the image is showing. Not some random picture taken by some random person of another random person. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe drifting off topic here, but I cannot understand why people get so upset about seeing a picture of a pair of breasts, something that every woman in the world has. Leave it in. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • (EC) Not actually an issue, no one (that I can see) above has said they are offended by breasts or pictures thereof. For those of us outside the US its actually a fairly normal thing. Beaches, sunbathing in the city etc. However there is a marked difference between 'informed consent' and 'photo taken while probably drunk and having a good time'. There is also a difference between flashing someone and having your picture adorning a worldwide encyclopedia accessed by millions daily. But given the licence its been uploaded to commons with, why doesnt someone just take the picture, blur the face and re-upload for use? Being able to identify her face is not required for the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • If the face was blurred it wouldn't be a very good illustration. It also wouldn't be enough to prevent identification; see commons:Commons:BLP#Identification. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Ah so its your opinion that for it to be a 'good illustration for exhibitionism' she must be identifiable? Or do you mean that it wouldnt be a 'good' illustration in that the picture quality would suffer? The first is refuted by the other non-identifable pictures, the second by finding a better picture with a subject who has given informed consent. Commons policy on identifable people is irrevelevant for wikipedia articles. However I would point out that even there it admits there are moral and ethical arguments. But for all practical purposes, a good scramble will mask her identity. It seems a reasonable compromise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • No, the subject doesn't need to be identifiable, but a blurred subject would be very distracting. Better not to have an image at all - though certainly replacements can be found (and there's currently an undisputed image in the article anyway, so it's not exactly a crisis). I mentioned Commons policy on identifiable people, specifically about identification issues, because you talked about uploading a blurred version to Commons!! Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Not offended at all, they are quite nice in fact, and the photo is a pretty good one. I think cropping would be a better option than blurring, but a better option yet would be to find an apt illustrative image where due to the pose, or costume, etc., makes the subject harder to identify. - 15:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to me, notice has been given here, and further discussion, if any, should go in the article's talk page or other forum appropriate to the topic. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A horrible article spawns all sorts of problems, not the least of which are the BLP issues. First of all, without a shred of reliable sourcing, the article equates any willingness to appear any willingness to appear unclad in a public or "semi-public" situation as exhibitionism. Then it categorizes exhibitionism among paraphilias, sex crimes, and sexual fetishes. Then it's illustrated with images of identifiable people. Taking the article on its own terms, the average high school or college athletic shower room is a hotbed of exhibitionism. Blow the damn thing up and start over, with an emphasis on reliable sources.
And, on the narrow BLP issue about a single photo: It's clearly staged; as is apparent from the uncropped image at Commons, the subject is clearly posing for a photographer. That doesn't make her an exhibitionist, in the sense the term is ordinarily understood. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fair (the article is pretty terrible), but those points about the article need making on the talk page (in a separate section, I guess). Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to those (more than one) who have taken the position above that because the image is "legal," that is the end of the matter. Making sure that Wikipedia's content (text and files) is "legal" is the beginning, not the end, of our editorial responsibilities. We delete, or decline to include, content all the time whose inclusion would be perfectly legal. For example, every time we delete an article because its subject is non-notable, we are making an editorial decision (sometimes a good one and sometimes a bad one) that the encyclopedia we are building is better off without that content. Only rarely (mostly in the case of copyvios) does "legality" play a role in deletion discussions; we retain or delete content because we think it improves the encyclopedia to include it, bearing in mind all relevant considerations. The relevant considerations in a given case may include completeness, accuracy and reliability, notability, as well as the potential effect of encyclopedic content on article subjects and third parties. We certainly do not privilege the last of these considerations over the others, but it has its place in our discussion, and the idea of excluding it from consideration as a matter of principle is repellent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• So find a better picture. The entire "remove it" argument is predicated on numerous assumptions and POV projections of how individual editors presume someone else would think. But the simplest solution here is simply to find a better picture to illustrate the subject. That would completely eliminate the need for all this argumentation. Resolute 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reject the general argument, BUT don't use the picture. WP:NOTCENSORED is a real policy - it's not just some whipping boy to be pulled out at the beginning and mocked every time someone comes up with a proposal to blanket-reject every possible image of a topic, say exhibitionism, based on the notion that "somebody might decide on second thought it was a bad idea". Should our article on FEMEN be suitably illustrated or not? However, that said, it does violate BLP to portray this particular woman as the illustration for exhibitionism, when we don't know she is an exhibitionist. We don't know the circumstances well enough to have a BLP-confident level of sourcing to say that she is a good example. Sure, she might be a good example, but this we don't play guessing games about that sort of stuff (we don't use Prince Charles to illustrate Fragile X, even if some people online say yeah, well, maybe he looks like he might carry it). I would appreciate keeping separate track of the two closes for this discussion, because I don't want the weak case for using this picture in this article to become an excuse to claim a more general consensus against more appropriate uses of potentially embarrassing photos. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If we have picture of a woman who is not naked, she could still be embarrassed about that later for all sorts of reasons. E.g. she could convert to Islam and decide to wear a burqa. To someone who wears a burqa, women who wear ordinary clothes are exhibitionists. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I have all sorts of issues with this pic being up, most of them covered by other Eds upthread and the other 2 this has created. If I see another WP IS NOT CENSORED-centric argument I shall trash my screen. Is this even an accurate pic to illustrate the topic? I thought exhibitionism was outside of the mainstream culture? This is not so with the event and subject I would argue. A much better pic would be an elderly man in a long overcoat hanging around a park.Irondome (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I read discussions such as these (and the one at Jimbo's talk page, and Commons) I always end up wondering "where in the world does Wikipedia manage to find the scumbags that manage to make these kinds of comments with a straight face???". The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that there's purposeful trolling going on because there's just no way that such a number of people can be so ethically damaged. But maybe that's what Wikipedia has become.Volunteer Marek 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ignore that contentious comment, and maybe I still ought to, but it is just outrageous. You're calling us "scumbags", "trolls", "ethically damaged" for trying to maintain uniform, logical standards for Wikimedia projects --- even as we have very patiently AGF-argued against the myriad wrong justifications of a crusade which from the beginning has been focused only on trying to remove all "porn" from Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several attitudes that appear to have been displayed so far. 1/ A blind and literal adherence to certain WP guidelines, which seems to reduce this person to the status of a lab rat. "System men" with no empathy to this person at all. 2/ An ethical issue, as VM mentioned above. Only use if we get permission from the subject (and I stick by my claim that this pic does not accurately represent the article subject). Just a gut feeling that having the pic up in the present time is wrong. I believe it would be illegal in the UK anyway, I think it would fall under the data protection act.Irondome (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what the UK has to do with it. It's an American picture on an American server and there's no reason to pay them any attention. For example, some of the European countries have database copyright stupidity, and I've fully and flagrantly ignored it, and intend to keep doing so. Nor is this a matter of "blind adherence"; this is a matter of ethics - the ethics that we should accurately cover the topics at hand, and not help to coerce women into feeling more unnecessarily ashamed of themselves for being female than they already do in furtherance of a wrong-headed societal taboo. As it happens, portraying the girl as the type specimen of an "exhibitionist" would be probably false. However, the picture could conceivably be properly used in illustration of the Mardi Gras festival in particular (though one would expect that far better street-scene photos of flashing by larger groups with more context should be available for that article) Wnt (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This isnt Watergate. So your ethical system is confined to the dictates of WP guidance? also, you seem to be asserting that pictures of women with their tits out is somehow empowering them? I note the tortuous use of some kind of unconvincing pro-feminist reasoning to let you have your cake and eat it. Sounds a pretty desperate argument. Glad you agree about the inappropriateness of the pic to the article. So lets get rid of it. Irondome (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Floquenbeam. It should go without saying. Andreas JN466 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we do what is usually done in such cases in the media, i.e. blur the face of the woman so she becomes unrecognizable? Count Iblis (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's essentially pointless, see commons:Commons:BLP#Identification. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true in general, but for this particular problem it should work. Count Iblis (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A noble, unprovable theory that is completely irrelevant. We'd link from the derivative version (pixellated) to the original (unpixellated) version (as required by policy and license) meaning she'd be trivially identifiable even if the non-technological factors (e.g. squinting) are ignored. The problem isn't that she's identifiable (if it were we would have no pictures of identifiable non-notable people) but that some people wish to hold images of people displaying body parts a mainstream western cultural attitude says shouldn't be shown in public to a different standard to images of people displaying body parts that other cultures say shouldn't be public but western mainstream cultural attitudes are fine with. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My original question is somewhat undermined by the fact that this was probably not, as claimed in the file description on Commons, a woman flashing the crowd at Mardi Gras, but instead a staged photo shoot. If that is indeed the case, I'm not as concerned about this particular case as I was before. But the more general point remains, and could apply to a lot of cases. Can we take a picture of a drunk in the gutter and use it to illustrate "alcoholism"? Indeed, should we be able to do something as "innocent" as to take a picture of someone who is shy, but happens to have been in public, and use it to illustrate "blond hair"?

My takeaway from this discussion is that, while it is certainly not unanimous, there is definitely a consensus that in a situation where a private individual has been photographed (even knowingly photographed) in a public place, can be easily identified, is not incidental to the photo but instead is the subject of the photo, has not given explicit permission to use their likeness for this purpose, and there is a reasonable expectation they might be embarrassed by the picture being used on Wikipedia, that we will not use that photo, even if it is licensed properly and would be of encyclopedic use. Regardless of what Commons thinks about the issue.

My own preference is much more restrictive than this; I believe we shouldn't use a photo of anyone who has not given their explicit consent, even if there is no reasonable expectation of embarrassment. Whether it makes the encyclopedia slightly less useful or not. I don't think I should have to wear a burqa to avoid being used to illustrate some encyclopedia article, just because I left my house to get groceries, and I think the right to privacy in a public place is currently not valued enough on WP, nor in the US. But that is not the subject of this particular discussion, and I am certainly not claiming there is currently a consensus for that. If I do decide to propose that in the future, I'll notify everyone who has commented in this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue comes up repeatedly (for instance, search this thread for the words "there is a strong ethical argument against including photos of aborted fetuses without some sort of indication that the patient consented to their prominent display on a highly-viewed page of a top-10 website"). I agree with Floquenbeam that the marginal utility added by a image is easily outweighed if there's a possibility that by prominently publishing it, we will harm or embarrass its subject. Like most such discussions on Wikipedia, the focus is on can we? rather than on should we? If there's one takeaway from this discussion, how about we try to focus future discussions on the latter question rather than the former? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove it. I can't help but think that if there actually are real Exhibitionists, it shouldn't be impossible to find one to pose for a photo and attach a written disclaimer that we can publish that he/she is perfectly happy to be viewed on a top-10-or-5-or-what-are-we-up-to-now website. If we can't get such a disclaimer, it's not unreasonable to suppose that this person is not as much of an exhibitionist as we would want to serve as an illustration of our article. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Garry Davis

Garry Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please apply some sort of standards to this article? It obviously was written by someone who is very fond of Mr. Davis if not Mr. Davis himself. My biggest problem is where it says "he renounced his citizenship in Paris..." That is simply untrue. Renouncing your citizenship is a very specific process that takes place at an embassy. Mr. Davis lives in South Burlington, Vermont, as a citizen of the United States, enjoying all the rights and privileges that being a citizen of the United State entails. He heads an organization which tries to sell booklets purporting to be 'World Passports', and this article is pretty much propaganda for that scheme. People pay money to buy these books and attempt to travel abroad with them. Please do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.18.33 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these concerns. I've trimmed and variously hacked away at what I agree was excessively promotional, or at least non-neutral, language in the article. You may wish to improve it further, perhaps after discussing the issues on the talk page of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

ita buttrose

Ita Buttrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ita Buttrose's wikipedia says she is born in 1942 and married at age 31, which means she married in 1972. Yet it states she and her husband travelled to England in 1967. If she divorced in 1976, did she marry 21 not 31, in 1962? It doesn't add up the way it is written now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.60.25 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference-interview says she was 21 when she first married. It looks like someone has made that change in the article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sensible Sentencing Trust - Gratuitous insult against living person, sourced from someone's blog

Quick question. Is this edit [29] even remotely acceptable? I wouldn't have thought so, but the last time I tried fixing any of that editor's BLP violations a lot of people got bent out of shape so I'd rather leave it to the experts. (The organisation in question actually bears little or no resemblance to the organisation described in the article, which has been converted into a hatchet job by an editor who is in an off-wiki dispute with the organisation, but it would require people with a lot more spare time than myself to fix that mess). Thanks in advance. Daveosaurus (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not acceptable. I have removed it, but it would be helpful if other regulars here commented as well, because I suspect this isn't the last we'll see of it, and it will help if there's a clear message here about BLP and RS for this particular gem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully this will start putting an end to the nonsense. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Black

The article is too short and the last half is pretty much nonsensical. Either that or someone is making unsourced claims with major grammatical errors. Unable to edit, don't know anything about the Director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.78 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the Stephanie Black article, and I've trimmed the excessive lists of awards (that should go in the articles about the films) and marked a couple of statements as not being referenced. I didn't see any BLP problems though - could you be more specific? The article being a stub isn't a biographical issue, and editors here are unlikely to be able to expand it (I've never heard of her). The best place to request expansion is on the talk page or at the WikiProject. I've tagged this for the New York and Actors and Filmmakers projects, and I'll place a note on the latter's Actors and Filmmakers|talk page where someone with knowledge of the subject is most likely to see it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason Bermas

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

I tried to add a couple sources and clean up some uncited material, but short that it is, it needs some more hands and eyes. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Allan Bell MHK

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

Comments about IOM Government support for the Sefton Group:- a) Should be identified as relating to a current event. b) Source 5 references newspaper opinion, which does not belong in a biography. c) The wording gives the impression that the Sefton is not profitable, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.86.29 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suman Sahai

Suman Sahai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of IPs and single-cause users keep removing the 'Controversy' section from the Suman Sahai article. As far as I can see that section is properly sourced and there aren't any BLP concerns. Am I right or should the section be removed?  Yintan  11:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• As the editor who put it there in the first place, I obviously think that it is OK :-) The source is impeccable and compared to what the source actually says, this section is quite neutral in tone... --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the subject has filed an OTRS request to delete both her bio and the stub on the organization that she established (Gene Campaign). --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope the Gene Campaign article isn't deleted because of a OTRS request given the RS coverage of the organization. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

William J. Kyte Bio Update

I need to update the bio of William J. Kyte. I would also like to insert a photo.

The article should be listed as follows:

William J. Kyte

Bill Kyte currently resides in Scottsdale, Arizona.

He was Founder, CEO and principal stockholder of Roanoke Companies, purchased by the H.B. Fuller Company in 2006.

Kyte attended the University of Arizona until 1965 when he returned to his native Kansas City, Missouri. He has developed a 50+ year entrepreneurial career in distribution, manufacturing and product development. Whilst with Roanoke Companies, Kyte also invented and attained patents D472,787 and US 7,241,828.

Currently, Kyte is the principal of Roanoke Capital Management (RCM), a group of extensive investments in private equity, real estate, as well as direct investments in the banking and energy sectors.

Mr. Kyte serves on the National Board of Advisors for the Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona. In June,1993 he was awarded a Certificate of Achievement from the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

His philanthropic interests focus on medical research, education for underprivileged children and hunger in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahferry (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information; and Wikipedia is certainly not a promotional tool. GiantSnowman 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Further input welcome - Sarah has a COI here, is edit-warring with me, and has stopped responding to e-mails. GiantSnowman 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I just closed a ticket re: this, with the suggestion that this is better handled through here. Not sure if she understands how this works, but we don't just paste over a bio with material provided by the subject's assistants. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason Collins

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

The page for NBA player who just came out as gay in the new Sports Illustrated is being called a "faggot" on his Wikipedia page. I believe it's in the first sentence. Please correct this immediately and do something to protect bigoted people from attacking him on Wikipedia.

Par for the course, unfortunately. Watched and will request protection if the vandalism gets too bad. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Maher Jr.

Under "talk" section, someone inserted a lie about "stealing thousands of books" which is a complete fabrication.

Thank you, Paul Maher Jr, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.4.209 (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It had been removed back in 2009, but it was inexplicably readded by another user. Removed now, thanks for the heads up. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sondra Peterson

This article is suffereing from some fallout from other BLP articles that are relatives to this subject. Mostly puffery and promotion edits and now socking. More eyes is usually the best solution.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what is being requested. The article does need development but could you specify your other concerns? Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Diane Gilliam Fisher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Gilliam_Fisher

Diane Gilliam Fisher has been divorced and wants the married name "Fisher" removed from the title of her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE3A:8EE0:223:12FF:FE52:FB4F (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need a source for it. Can you provide one? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Elisa Gaudet

• Elisa Gaudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kristopher Carpenter (talk · contribs)
• Alicia Bowerman (talk · contribs)

Pure puff piece with copyright violations, just created by an account edit-warring to retain the unacceptable content. See also user sandbox for duplicate, with copyright violations [30]. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)