Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.105.109.203 (talk) at 06:40, 23 July 2013 (→‎Evie Sands: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    Question about Gateways (organization)

    I just noticed that the advertising tag on Gateways (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been removed and took a look at the article for the first time in a while. I've brought it here because most of it is really made up of 3 BLP 'articles', each of which dwarfs the information on the organisation itself. This seems inappropriate but I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about it. Maybe the 3 biographies need to be turned into articles? Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the individuals meet our notability standards, as does the organization. There have been AFD's on the individuals, as can be seen on the article's Talk page, but in my opinion freestanding articles on the individuals are warranted. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it may seem to be eclipsed by the world at large, within the field, so to speak, of Orthodox Judaism, Gateways is a notable entity, as are the 3 rabbis mentioned. Freestanding articles of the rabbis were in existence but were merged because it was felt by consensus that their combined notability within the organization substantiated a presence on Wikipedia, while each alone did not. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Orsini family

    Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here, here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. Although the problem was reported here, the BLP violations have increased: Admin intervention is needed. Archived by bot, re-listed for still needed admin action. FactStraight (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for 3 months which can be extended if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

    Since the original charges agains Assange were issues, there has been a long running debate on how to characterize the charges. Some editors have suggested that the charges should be called "rape", while others have suggested more general terms like "sexual assault". Complicating the issue is the fact that the exact charges are legal in nature and roughly translate to something like "rape lesser degree", for which there is no congruent term in the English language. The general nature of the charge appears to be a category of sexual assault which is somewhere between "date rape" and "sexual harassment", though the precise definition is a bit nebulous due to translation issues, both legal and language.

    This topic has been discussed several times on both the case page, and Assange's page: [1], [2]. Similarly, from Julian Assange, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

    The general consensus has been to prefer high quality secondary sources when referring to the charges. Currently an editor is attempting to insert descriptions based on this source: [11], which is a foreign language primary source from the prosecution. Using this source seems to run afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Higher quality sources like in-depth reporting from large news outlets are safer sources for supporting controversial content like the exact nature of the charges.

    Any guidance here would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can any editors more experienced with WP:BLP comment on this issue? 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    To add, I'm the user in question, though more accurately I'm attempting to revert information that was removed by Aprock. I have presented three BBC articles, as well as two court documents to go along with one of the original sources. These are all high quality sources, yet the information (what the warrant actually details) is continuously being removed by Aprock, despite the page being about said warrant and the high quality reliable sources. As we've now come to a stalemate it would be best if there were further comments on this situation, as we can't resolve it among each other. Pluvia (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has always been problematic, not only due to language difficulties, but due to the way the Swedish legal system works. Strictly speaking, Assange hasn't as yet been formally charged with anything - such charges come relatively late in the legal process, as I understand it. Added to that is the difficulty of accurately translating the alleged offences: våldtäkt, olaga tvång and sexuellt ofredande. Certainly English-language media sources have referred to 'rape' as being amongst the alleged offences (e.g. the BBC: "Mr Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding rape and sexual assault allegations"[12], and The Guardian: "[Assange] has been accused of sexual assault and rape." [13]). While I agree that attempting to translate court documents from Swedish is problematic on several levels, I do wonder if the current article could be seen as understating the serious nature of the allegations. If mainstream sources refer to allegations of "rape and sexual assault", it really isn't up to us to second-guess them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to agree with AndyTheGrump I cant see any reason not to use wording from a reliable source like the BBC. It is not our job to guess or translate original documents but to report the reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

    S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article is subject to a lot of additions of gushing fan cruft. Usually, it is done by IPs, but the latest offender is an auto-confirmed account, although it's possible that some of the IPs preceding the registered account adding the same material are the same person. I've warned the editor, but it doesn't seem to do any good. They're one of those editors who never talk. They just keep plugging away like no one else exists but them. They have added a large section to the article charmingly entitled "Love for Karnataka and Kannadigas" with some choice tidbits like:

    • He has sung thousands of songs in Kannada for all the stars of the industry, mainly for Super Star Dr.Vishnuvardhan.
    • In a felicitation function to the popular and noted singers of South India that happened in Chowdiah Memorial Hall ...
    • their very first song 'Haavina Dwesha Hanneradu Varusha' composed by Vijaya Bhaskar and written by Vijaya Narasimha was a huge hit and is still remembered

    In addition to that (and more), there are long quotes from the subject about how he feels. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed blatant puff lists of everything he has ever done with anyone -- I suggest the linked list of "awards" may also be a tad down-filled Collect (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed quite a bit, but the one thing you didn't remove is the section I was specifically complaining about? Was that an oversight? If not, why?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collect, please be very cautious about what you are removing. Filmographies are not "puffs". You could even be blocked for WP:BLANKING if this discussion is not taken into consideration. I suggest you keep out of this if you are unaware of how film personality's articles are to be. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware that your claim of "BLANKING" is inapt here, and that as you appear to be the one violating policies, it is far more likely that you would be blocked. Now listen to what others say before Streisand is invoked. Collect (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay! So lets listen why you have removed the filmography section. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an existing section on his film work. Wikipedia does not automatically have extensive filmographies of every film a person has ever worked on in their BLPs. Even famous actors on Wikipedia generally do not get that treatment, so a voice-over worker is likely to be less notable for the extensive filmography. Listing everything a person has ever done is "puff" in my opinion, and in the opinion of others here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some featured articles that have filmography sections: Phil Hartman, Ethan Hawke, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Noël Coward, Steve Dodd, Kirsten Dunst, Jay Chou, David Bowie, Mariah Carey, Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon. And i also know of some FAs which do not include such lists and some which direct you to a totally different page. The main point is that filmography section is not the main concern here which Bbb23 is notifying about. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that such is not a requirement (in fact, is rare for anyone other than a primary star for films), and for a voice-over person - it is simply not found. Collect (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm! Anyways... Happy editing! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bbb23, most of the statements do look like praises and fan cruft. But some of it is fact and can be well sources. For example SPB has sung over 40,000 songs. I would request that blind blanking of article shouldn't be done. Maybe someone who is regular on it should clean it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    *Taking a go. EBY (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dulee Johnson

    Dulee Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Would someone please take a look at the message I have posted at this article's talk page following an e-mail from the subject at OTRS? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would just trim anything that is non-English sourced and contentious. If English sources don't see it as notable then en:wp shouldn't either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources don't have to be in English to demonstrate the notability of a subject.--ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true. EN:WP is not just about what is notable in English. There are WP:RS in every language, just need an editor who can help establish same. EBY (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    John Sankey (drummer)

    The chief problem with the John Sankey (drummer) article is its tone: self-serving, overly positive and promotional. It reads like a media release, perhaps written by the subject, and at times like a fanzine article (e.g. 'needless to say Sankey fired Carpenter from the band immediately'). Further, the article fails entirely to meet the verifiability standard, due to the inclusion of numerous unsourced quotes and unreferenced mentions of awards, praise and renown. There is too much information about the career of the band Devolved (band), which has its own article. A minor issue is idiosyncratic formatting of the article: the image of the subject is large and located top and centre of the page, instead of being thumbnailed and placed on one margin, and the subject's name has been formatted in bold type throughout the text. Last, the links at the bottom of the page have been headed as 'References' but they are actually 'External links'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondrumm (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that article made my eyes bleed. Tagged for multiple issues (formatting, citations, etc) but I'll leave it for others to determine if he meets notability. I'd wager 75% or more of this article can be trimmed. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It needs to be blown up and started again - tagged for G11 speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a workable stub in the article history. If notability is a concern then PROD and AfD are certainly options.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call -- you have more patience than I do!--ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pope Francis

    Has categories all to himself - including "Jesuit Popes" and "Argentine Popes." Are they really of any conceivable value to readers? Collect (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We should keep Category:Argentine popes as it fits into the structure of Category:Popes by nationality, and the geography of papal selections is an often remarked upon issue. Category:Jesuit popes strikes me personally as pretty useless, but some might make the same argument I just made and apply it to Category:Popes by religious order. Gamaliel (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcial Losada

    Article looks like it was written by himself. Interesting, in view of recent debunking by Sokal http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory Richard Gill (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Depuffed. Removed some detail as being too negative. <g> Collect (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    John Acquaviva

    John Acquaviva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Not an urgent request, however I'm hoping an interested editor will be willing to give this BLP a good NPOV scrub. I also have concerns regarding copyright issues related to material lifted from his official bio. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ug. Lots of puff. Sounds like a copyvio to me, but I didn't check. Just removed some POV, but there's a lot more to be had if anyone is bored and looking for something to do. Ditch ∝ 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Berra

    The user is presenting himself as Dale Berra. He has first attempted to delete sourced material from the article about a drug indictment (most recent diff) and lately has been trying to add material claiming sobriety for the last 20 years (diff) using only primary, non-published sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not care who he is - the source was ill-used for the claims made in a BLP, and is now corrected. Collect (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Holden, sociologist

    If this is already at ANI then it should stay there. No forum shopping please. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am raising an issue that has been raised at WP:ANI#Jehovah's Witnesses. My complaint has been swamped there with a hijacking of the thread by irrelevant material that needs to be raised elsewhere.

    User:Corjay has made multiple attacks at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact on Andrew Holden, a published and widely-cited English sociologist, arising from objections that Corjay (a self-identified Jehovah's Witness) has with a statement about the religion sourced to Holden.

    Corjay has claimed Holden:

    • Is not objective, not a researcher, opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and a poison-pen writer[14][15];
    • Can not be taken seriously by other academics[16];
    • Does nothing as an academic but obsess over Jehovah's Witnesses and has a clear bias against the religion[17]; took part in a study initiative involving Muslims only because he was paid to, but would rather have attacked JWs;[18];
    • Has a vendetta against JWs[19];
    • Is an outright opposer of JWs[20]; and
    • Is an obsessed ex-JW[21] (for which there is not a shred of evidence).

    Corjay has brushed off my warning about personal attacks.[22] WP:BLP covers comments on talk pages. Holden is a reputable academic and such personal attacks on that talk page by a defiant and unrepentant editor deserve to be sanctioned. BlackCab (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is in direct conflict with an interview given by Holden himself which explains his views [[23]]. This is just a few of the quotes from it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this is being discussed at ANI, I can't see the point in splitting the discussion. BlackCab, if you want sanctions to be imposed against Corjay, ask at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. That part of the conversation has been lost amid the cacophony of rehashed arguments that belong elsewhere. And I know no admin is going to have the patience to trawl through all that garbage again. BlackCab (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    John Sinrud

    John Sinrud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article violates wikipedia guidlines. In addition to being difficult to read, the content is poorly sourced and editorialized. In addition, there seems to be a debate taking place on the page that is more suitable for the Talk Page. Furthermore, I'm not sure that this article is noteworthy enough to merit its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.78.122 (talk • contribs)

    I reverted to a BLP compliant version from the history and will keep an eye on it.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nadim Kobeissi

    After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what we can do about this, other than promote the 'Controversies' section up to the Activism one. I mean if that's all he's basically notable for, but it looks like it went up for AFD and kept as notable. You'll need to be more specific as to what parts you find to be non-neutral. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Grover Norquist

    "primary architect of the decline of The United States"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.126.109 (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the Correctly pointed out Grover Norquist's inevitable legacy edit was reverted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Burnham

    Andy Burnham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Daily Mail is in a lather over this article today.[24] I explained on the talk page what the problem was, and would appreciate some input from non-involved editors.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We need a wider discussion of the role of editing from Parliamentary IP addresses. They are frequently used to score partisan points. I can appreciate their occasional BLP concern though. Why have they not been subject to the levels of engagement that public relations companies have? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuldip Singh Kular

    Kuldip Singh Kular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • I believe the current version of the article violates WP:BLPCRIME. For the following reasons:
      • The person in the article is relatively unknown, he is a former provincial MLA. A google search under his name "Kuldip Singh Kular" only has 1,750 results.
      • There was a full acquittal due to insufficient evidence, and he was immediately reappointed to his post after this.
      • For these reasons I believe that there is no reason to include the charges as it had no effect on his career, inclusion seems to imply that he was guilty of some crime he never committed.

    Gsingh (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective of Google hits the person receives, the fact of his being charged and later acquitted can go in the article irrespective of how big/small the issue was in media. If the issue was well documented and if the person is actually known for this incident only, it can go in lead also. If not, it should be kept out of lead but be retained in the article. When a biography is written, we will have to mention why he was removed from his post for a certain period and then the reason for it would obviously be needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ram Revilla

    Ram Revilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I'm currently expanding the article Ram Revilla. As suggested by User:DGG that I should make a request here before editing the article to prevent me from making any more mistakes that would violate the BLP policies. I have read the policies and somewhat edited it to my best. I have now my draft, but I am warned that if I post anything I'd be blocked. So, where do I show it for your approval? Thanks a lot. By the way, I was originally creating another article for the same person Ram Revilla Murder Case but now, as suggested I will just expand it on the main article. Fearjesus (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also, as said on the policies that unconvicted or suspects's name must not be included, so I only made it as their initials. But I also see an exemption about putting names if they are publicizednow in the news over and over again. Fearjesus (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried my best to edit my article to a much better that is complacent with the BLP policies. I will now post it on the Ram Revilla page. Please review. Thank you! And please, do not block me. I do not see any reasons for it to be happening now. Fearjesus (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Riall

    The Tom Riall article is out of date - Tom Riall is now the Chief Executive Officer of Priory_Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of mental health, learning disability and specialist education services. He joined the Group in April 2013. Please see relevant links to corroborate this:

    http://news.sky.com/story/1009380/exclusive-priory-seeks-help-from-serco-boss http://www.priorygroup.com/investors/management-team http://www.healthinvestor.co.uk/(S(2fynm545r4srox45lrl5fj45)A(aqr6ycmMzgEkAAAAN2U0MDk5NDUtZTk2Yi00ZWRmLTllMDktOTk2MGE1ZmM3OGUy96JUzb-Pemj3c5S6kb3-bmm3YqA1))/ShowArticleNews.aspx?ID=2547&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

    Please can you update his biography?

    james Randi

    I would like to add the following to the James Randi article: On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long-term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. Deyvi Pena had also played the part of 'Carlos' a fake channeler, in James Randi's Project Alpha.[1][2]

    There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article, and no mention of his partner being convicted, despite the fact it mentions their marriage and the Project Alpha. I feel the article is not NPOV and is being controlled by those who support Randi's work with no balance. Solar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Such an edit can only mean you want to make Randi guilt by association. Sorry but it is not going to fly, this would seriously violate WP:BLP. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and just found you tried to sneak this into the article almost exactly one year ago. It was wrong before, it is wrong now. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be polite, I did not try to 'sneak' anything into the article, I just want to add relevant information about the key person in the Alpha Project and Randi's partner. I had talked about adding it a year ago yes, and I was advised to add it here, which I did not get around to doing at the time. I am also not trying to imply guilt by association, just add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project. I wonder if a major psychic performer's partner and co-performer was convicted of identity theft if this would be considered a problem. I'm sure it would be added before the day was out. Solar (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh no, it wouldn't be added, BLP has nothing to do with the subject being a psychic, a skeptic or whatever. And "add a point about his private life and the person he worked with on a major project" is the textbook definition of guilt by association. That stuff does not belong to the article on Randi, because it is not about Randi, first and foremost. -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article currently says that Randi came out as gay in a blog post; it mentions his marriage which happened less than a week after DOMA was struck down, includes the name of the husband, and has a section beginning "In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a hoax of his own..." about their efforts to seek publicity. That section mentions the name of the person whose name was assumed by Randi's partner. The victim's name should be removed from the article, and these new details about the victim should not be added. Randi's husband doesn't seem like a low-profile person to me, having appeared (if I'm reading correctly) on 60 Minutes. The fact that he used a false identity, apparently so that he could live in the United States, seems noteworthy in the larger context of gay immigration, and in Randi's personal life. —rybec 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Inserting references to crimes for which there is not the slightest evidence or even a claim that James Randi was involved in is clearly a prohibited attempt at guilt by association and has no place in James Randi's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Randi testified in court—whether willingly or under compulsion, I do not know. Had he been married to a woman, he could not have been compelled to testify against her. This fact need not be presented as an attack on Randi. I feel it's important to his story, particularly since he himself is an immigrant. —rybec 00:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people testify in court over many things. There exists a general consensus on the article talk page (and, I might add, a general consensus on Wikipedia) that we do not discuss on biography pages unrelated crimes committed by a person's family, partners or friends. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Supposedly, this person, spouse of James Randi, "doesn't seem like a low profile person" to Rybec. OK then, write well-rounded and well-referenced NPOV biography of that person and include this information in a due weight fashion there. Rybec believes that this information is "important" to Randi's biography, "particularly since he himself is an immigrant." James Randi has lived in the United States since the 1950s, I believe. Please, Rybec, explain to us why you believe that a biography of an "immigrant" requires a "particular" level of scrutiny from you? I see absolutely no reason to include information about another person's infractions in a biography of James Randi. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense periodically erupts at James Randi because skeptics with a focus on hocus pocus (couldn't resist!) attract such attention. Nevertheless, articles do not contain "guilt by association" factoids such as the fact that Obama might have met Bill Ayers, or that [a certain well-known author] has a spouse who was accused of some very bad behavior. It's fine for someone's blog to assert that person X had partner Y, and Y is really bad, but at the encyclopedia anyone can edit, standards are higher. When X is convicted of aiding and abetting Y, of course that will appear in the article. Until then, it's gossip, and won't. When an incident has suitable notability, an article on the incident can be created, such as Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Very strange BLP issue...

    That being, I don't know who the heck the guy is! Marc Biedermann is the title of the article. The AllMusic entry used as its only source says he's "Mike" Biedermann. A Google search gives two non-WP-related hits, one where he's listed as "Marc" and the other as "Mark." He's borderline notable due to tour/session associations with other acts, so article deletion isn't likely, but it's hard to do anything with the article when the name can't be searched for easily. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand what is strange here. You say the article does have a reference and that he is somewhat notable and the article is unlikely to be deleted, but you are concerned because you do not know who the guy is and you only find a few items in a Google search. I have to admit I don't see the issue here.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, I can verify work (there's only one Biedermann in the band) but I can't verify the subject's first name - it's either Mike, Marc, or Mark. MSJapan (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His name does appear to be Marc [25] [26]. He's not massively notable, though. He's been a full-time member of one minorly notable band, played on one album for a similarly minorly notable band, and played on one track for a very notable band. To pass WP:MUSBIO#6, you'd have to assume him to have been "a member" of the 2nd band as opposed to a session musician. Given the lack of sources, it's an edge case. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys named Marc (maybe) are allowed to use varying stage names such as "Mike" or "Mark", and doing so has no impact on their borderline notability. Energy devoted to analyzing stage names would be more useful if devoted to removing promotional puffery from the biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehmet Oz

    An IP editor ~ 86.19.115.227 ~ is repeatedly adding soapboxing commentary on an alleged controversy concerning Mehmet Oz's ("Dr. Oz") views on circumcision. The IP's original edits accused Oz's views as "ludicrous" (which they may be but that isn't for the IP to tell us). I have unsuccessively tried to indicate to the IP why these edits aren't acceptable. The IP instead responds with false accusations of "vandalism" in edit summaries and with rants and threats on the article's discussion page. Apart from the edits being both soapboxing and commentary no citations have been provided that Oz's views on circumcision has attracted any controversy. I will appreciate other editors and administrators having a look at the IP's edits and monitoring the page for further BLP violations. Afterwriting (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely inappropriate. The subject's views on the matter could be included, but not that way. I note the IP has already been blocked once for soapboxing, so I'll also be watching the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Evie Sands

    I know Evie Sands personally, and she assures me that she was NOT born in 1946, and her birthday IS July 18.

    1. ^ Burstein, Jon. "Artist pleads guilty to passport fraud", "Sun Sentinel", March 14, 2012
    2. ^ Franceschina, Peter. "Plantation artist avoids prison for stealing man's identity two decades ago", "Sun Sentinel", May 29, 2012
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=565438597"