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.

Premakeerthi de Alwis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis Assassination section

Please note that there has been a dispute going on about the assassination of the person mentioned in the article, Premakeerthi de Alwis. De Alwis's murder has been officially investigated and murderer has been sentenced in the High Court of Colombo, Sri Lanka and the verdict has also been upheld by the Appeals Court of Sri Lanka.

However, nearly a quarter century later, his wife, Nirmal de Alwis has written a book accusing Hudson Samarasinghe, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and self published it. Recently at the 25th death anniversary of the deceased, Nirmala has shouted out at the president of Sri Lanka "why he was protecting, her husband's killer, Samarasinghe". This shouting at the president received a huge amount of publicity from mainstream media. However, those media reports are merely quoting what Nirmala de Alwis was saying. Not a single person in the world has made this accusation except for Nirmala de Alwis. Her claims are knowingly false and unsubstantiated. Mr. Samarasinghe has never been questioned or investigated for the murder of de Alwis.

A user named Wipeouting(other names -Academiava, Academiava2, Academiava3) has been trying to get this information included in the article. This information has been repeatedly refused by Wikipedia administrators as it violates the biographies of the living persons. However, wipeoutings plea was heard by an administrator (Bill w) and has been requested another administrator Obi2canibe to rewrite the article to include this unsubstantiated claim by his wife. Although Samarasinghe's name was not mentioned, all the references are indirectly pointing to Hudson Samarasinghe which ultimately injures Samarasinghe. You can find an analysis of her false accusation at http://ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi-de-alwis-official-court-ruling/

I am kindly requesting that unsubstantiated accusations starting with the line "In 2009 de Alwis' widow Nirmala" be removed from this article. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ramya20: Two RS document that she made the claim you mention above. And the way the information is written it clearly states that this is nothing more and nothing less than a claim she made in a book she wrote. On first look, to me, it seems both notable and unbiased, since it's stated as her opinion and not as fact. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a properly sourced and relevant counter claim made in response to her allegations you may want to add it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section clearly violates the WP:BLPCRIME which is a part of the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. It states that cases like these accusations of criminal activity should not be added unless a conviction has been secured --Ramya20 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: It is disappointing you have unilaterally removed the content based on the canvassing of User:Ramya20. WP:BLPCRIME states [in full] "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I have highlighted the first part because User:Ramya20 has deliberately left this out in his canvassing.

If the accused is well known, we can include the accusations if they are reported in reliable sources, even if the accusations haven't resulted in a criminal charge (e.g. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck) or even if the accused has been acquitted (e.g. Nigel Evans, William Roche). The individual accused by Nirmala de Alwis is well known in Sri Lanka, he is the chairman of a national broadcaster, politician, former MP and a twice presidential candidate. Even if the accused was "relatively unknown" we only have to have serious consideration on the merits of including the accusation, there is no automatic presumption that the accusation must be excluded.

Needless to say that the accusation must be written in a neutral manner and must attribute the source of the accusation, not make the accusation in Wikipedia's voice. This was what the content you removed did.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more acting unilaterally than any other editor would do; it's not an administrative action. I don't believe including the material is the right thing to do, as including these unproven accusations could do real-world harm to the person. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe has definitely improved the article and I thank him for that. However, unlike the sample biographies he has provided above, Hudson Samarasinghe has never been questioned or criminally investigated in this case. He has never been associated with this murder in any way for last 25 years. If Nirmala de Alwis has filed a lawsuit or if she has filed a police complaint on her own accord, it is fair to include that information. However, a for-profit book written nearly 25 years post his death is a questionable motive. Further, it is unfair to include accusations when this murder has been officially investigated and closed. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:These accusations have been widely reported in Sri Lankan media and I don't believe mentioning it on Wikipedia will do the accused any appreciable harm, particularly as it didn't mention the accused. The accused has given interviews to the media about the accusations - he is not trying to suppress the accusations. @Ramya20: I have to correct you again, a complaint has been made - the police have taken a statement from Nirmala de Alwis - this was mentioned in the removed content. As for your last point, WP:NPOV requires articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By suppressing the views of the victim's widow we are not fairly representing all significant views. As it stands the article only represents one view - that of the highly politicised, corrupt justice system of Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint has NOT been made by his wife. The police summoned her to get a statement. She appeared with her lawyer. If it does not violate the Wikipedia policy, I am okay with a neutral controversy section included but this cannot be a part of the assassination section. If this accusation is included in the controversy section, her newest accusation of TV Company Owner should also be included as that was also in one of the references.^[1]

Obi2canibe, please note that Sri Lankan news media is not impartial either. As you may already know that most of the media that carried out her interviews (mirror, Times) are associated with relatives of UNP leader whom Samarasinghe criticizes regularly on his daily program. Samarasinghe has also sued Sunday Leader several years ago for defamation. While papers like Daily News and Sunday Observer are associated with the Government and carries government propaganda, private media is also owned and run by people who have special party potical interests. I do not seek in any way to suppress viable content. However, hypothetically if someone else self publishes a book saying that Santa Clause killed Premakeerthi and gets media coverage, should that be included as well.

--Ramya20 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/172-opinion/51200-premakeerthis-killers-still-alive-.html

this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner.[[1]] user Ramya20 trying avoid the truth of this assassination . please change this article to reasonable vision and protect this article (Academiava3 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

It is surprising that users like Academiava3 (a sock puppet of blocked user wipeouting, Academiava, Academiava2) are able to delete their page history and harass other users on their talk pages^[1]. A controversy section can be included to cover the recent events without violating the Wikipedia policy.--Ramya20 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking why This lady Ramya20 is trying to Avoid this multiple issues of this assignation. please stop factual vandalism. this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner by User:Xymmax and Wtwilson3. please protect this Article from Violate editors . The User-Ramya20 is doing edit to Wikipedia since four year just only for this article. anyone can see her work history. (Academiava3 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramya20

Academiava3, surprised that you refereed to me as a "lady" although you referred to me on my talk page a derogatory term "ho" and then cleaned up the history to cover the tracks.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner on 19:42, 21 August 2014‎ by user:Xymmax and contribution of user:Wtwilson3. but user:ramya20 made a huge propaganda avoid this version with multiple issues . we really appreciate if somebody can involve fix this mater and revert to previous version. and please banned user:ramya20 and against to factual vandalism and high protect this article. please do real justification to assassinated we known journalist in sri lanka. (Academiava4 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

Nirmala’s argument is not a fiction or hypothesis like Santa Clause. She came with facts. Hudson s is the number one corrupted media person in sri lanka. Please search on internet his whereabouts. I am putting some suitable links. in situation of highly politicized , ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi- article by user Ramya20 crated avoiding the truth recently. Please do real justification for this assassination. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

please see this link too

The Way the Country is Moving (Rat Yana Atha)”, death threats and derogatory comments were directed by callers toward Dr. Nimalka Fernando. [[9]]

Academi100 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academi100 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is about discussing a previous inclusion of an accusations of a crime, and the above comment by Academi100 alias wipeouting further proves his resort to injure Samarasinghe using Wikipedia with further personal attacks. As I indicated before, the removed content violates that policy. --Ramya20 (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya is making a operation protecting her relative. we don't need to injure Hudson personally. he has explore his corrupted behaviors well. please keep up this article in a pretty balanced and factual manner in highly politicized context in sri lanka. And please do real justification to this assassinated journalist.--Academi100 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call me a relative of Samarasinghe. Do not try to make assumptions about my identity. All you have tried to do for last 4 years was to injure Samarasinghe with accusations, starting with blog posts and facebook inclusions in Wikipedia until I requested Wikipedia to remove those to meet the policies and standards. Now you are bringing back the same accusations with media coverage. I have no doubt that your intention is malicious and violates WP:BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed except for recent media coverage.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why do you want to protect Samarasinghe? you have already prove your identity. samarasingaha has explored already his behavior. you cannot clean those. please do real justification to this is worst assassination and crime in sri lanka. samarasingaha is using government baking and coverage ovoid those issues. ramya20 is doing this job in Wikipedia. please involve administrator solve this mater properly and find out all necessary information about this assaination . we need to fix this article pretty balanced and factual manner. .--Academi100 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding a quote alleged to be by George Bush that Tyson has referred to in speeches. Issues of RS and UNDUE apply, and the dispute has spilled offsite with a partisan website attacking individual editors. Neutral editors should have a look. Gamaliel (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that patheos.com is a reliable source. It looks like a blog to me. Aside from that, I don't think that it's necessary to include both of these sentences:

Hemant Mehta called the incident "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence."

Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."

Both quotes are essentially saying the same thing (more or less). I would recommend removing one. BTW, this content is in the section on Politics, which seems wrong. IIRC, Tyson's point was about scientific literacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty much indisputable it happened, there is multiple videos of it. While the larger point is about science literacy, he chose to make it political, by making up a quote and attributing it to a political person. However, I do agree on the WP:UNDUE part, until/unless this starts getting picked up by more mainstream sources, its just some non-notable opinions talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are any admins reading this? They've been edit-warring over this for the past three days. We made need to lock it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The slander is not that of Tyson but by Tyson (of Bush). It does not diminish Tyson who as a scientist can make mistakes. Many do. I don't see the huge deal in this. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After spending more time thinking about this, I think I've changed my mind and now believe that it's undue weight to have this in the article. There are literally thousands of articles written on this topic, we can't put every little detail in an article. If this was truly important, more sources would have picked up on this. They haven't. If that happens, we can always reevaluate. I'm also a bit concerned that even the couple sources that do cover this don't appear to be straight news stories but are basically opinion columns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: (or any other admin reading this) Given that this content is potentially disparaging to both George W Bush and Neil deGrasse Tyson (depending on how you want to look at it), I think that the safest thing to do is to have the disputed content temporarily removed until consensus can be achieved. The article is locked, so I cannot do this myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC ongoing at the article's talk page on this issue. It seems civil. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge:, do you mean these two paragraphs that were re-added by User:Sphilbrick, themselves an admin? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel, A Quest For Knowledge, Gaijin42, Limit-theorem, and Capitalismojo: I see that this thread was started on the 19th. I just became aware of it because someone pinged me. The instructions say that {{BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the artilce talk page, so that editors will know about this discussion. Why was that not done in this case? I am not a regular here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the directions?--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off article Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations created by Kelly. I find this article to be a BLP violation as there clearly is not enough sources/notability for a stand-alone article. I temporarily redirected it to the main article , but this has been undone. Probably most correct to nominate it for deletion, but should the article be allowed to be kept up while the ADF discussion is ongoing? My suggestion would be that it should be temporary blanked for BLP concerns. Iselilja (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify the specific unsourced BLP concern that you have? I've been careful to specify that these are simply allegations and I have used reliable sources on all controversial info so far as I can determine. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is WP:UNDUE weight to controversy by having a stand-alone article on it, as it is currently only covered in a couple of articles in Reliable sources. There exists much more coverage of other part of Tyson's life which doesn't have a stand-alone article. Only major controversies with tons of sources merit their own articles. Iselilja (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is nothing preventing anyone from expanding the content on Tyson to include articles on other parts of his life. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Paquette

Renee Paquette (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

We keep having an issue in the personal life section of Renee Paquette with unsubstantiated gossip. People keep reversing it but it's changed back almost immediately. Also, her birthdate is verified through IMDB, regardless of what is said on Twitter. Can we please get a protection template to put a stop to this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker2172013 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not sufficiently reliable to verify dates of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion at Talk:Renee Paquette#Date of birth to get more input from editors of the article about what DOB, if any, should be listed in the article. Right now it doesn't look like there's any reliable source cited. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gene Arno

Richard Gene Arno (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article does not have NPOV. Sources cited are from Arno's own organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tres1162 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change Venu Ravichandran to V. Ravichandran

The name of the producer Oscar Ravichandran is redirected to a page which is named "Venu Ravichandran" which is a wrong name, his name is just V. Ravichandran. Please make the change as soon as possible. Our producer is mistaken for another associate producer "Venu Ravichandran" of Tamil Movie "Majaa". Naveenvaradarajan (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The problem is that the other person is actually known as "Oscar" or "Aascar" and runs a company called "Aascar Films" (previously "Oscar Films"). They are both producers. You need to clarify which it is you are talking about and why we should redirect to one over the other. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davido

Greetings Administrators. I need some clarification with the nationality parameter on Wikipedia. Davido was born in America but lives in Nigeria. Since he has both an American and Nigerian passport, should his Biography read: Davido is a Nigerian American recording artist .... or Davido is an American born Nigeria recording artist...? Which is correct. I need some clarification because I believe the former is right. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second seems to be clearer. (Though make it American born Nigerian.) The first could mean that he is an American of Nigerian heritage. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive about this--and it's a minor quibble at any rate--but shouldn't it be "American-born", with a hyphen between the words? LHM^{ask me a question} 14:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro A. T. Savillo terrible edit by User:Madambaster

User:Madambaster edited the isidro A. T. savillo article shamefully. All the inline citations were removed and I could not find a way of undoing her stupid work. Important facts about his life like his editorial membership, etc. are no longer seen. I hope that there will be a better edit and also to include his awards. I would request this mad Madambaster to not participate in editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towering peaks (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Madambaster only acted to remove excess details and trivia. Remember to Assume good faith.--Auric talk 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity baby names

Since the arguments are likely going to largely hinge on BLP issues, thought I should give a notice that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity baby names, if anyone is interested in participating.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

I updated the biography of Gonzala Lira to reflect a chronology of accomplishments to include a timely reference from 2014 reiterating his opinions of 2010.

Revisions are "creeping back" which are marketing related. Left user talk back.

173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)173.68.144.130173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits—they're terrible.

From your edits in the first paragraphs of the entry, it's not clear who the subject is, or their relevance. That's just bad editing.

You also keep referring to single episode appearances of the subject, whereas—from a cursory search on YouTube—he has about a dozen punditry appearances (probably more, but I didn't bother checking). So one opinion of his on one show is irrelevant.

Finally, the subject, in fact, is/was a prominent blogger. He might not be now, but he was at one point in time. That fact is undisputed—and relevant to the subject's article.

MILH (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edie falco

Sandahl Bergman was the main female character in Conan the Barbarian. Not Edie Falco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:8B00:2E0:AC04:9F3A:80C5:ABB5 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Di Marzio

Here we go again: another instance of a BLP being fluffed up. Here's the version I ran into, with much of the content having been added by Zambelo in this edit. Note how the "more than 100 articles" is sourced to the subject's own website (completely unacceptable, of course), and how the "She has been interviewed" so many times is sourced not to a secondary source saying so, but to the interviews and such. So I clean it up, reorganize it, and tag it some in a few successive edits, summaries and all, to rewrite it in agreement with how we typically do BLPs for such subjects (writers, academics, etc). Then Zambelo comes by again, adds "She is a member of the managing board" of an organization so that it's in there twice now, and complaining that I "remove[d] information on education"--I didn't, I reorganized it as prose, which is what we're supposed to do. In a subsequent edit they restore wikilinks for Italy (WP:OVERLINK), add a link for International Cultic Studies Association (so now there's two, since Cultic Studies Review redirects there), add a useless wikilink for "academic journal".

You'll note that in the current version much of the information is in there twice, and that Zambelo re-added the stuff we don't put in such articles--like a list of articles, and here also a list of "contributions" to encyclopedic books, without even the actual contributions listed. Sheer editorial laziness, and please note also that in their last grand revert they remove the only real secondary source in the article, which I added--Stevani, Milena (2011). "Rev. of Di Marzio, Nuove religioni e sette". CESNUR. Retrieved 23 September 2014..

I urge some seasoned BLP editors to have a look at these reverts, which kind of make a mockery of accepted practice and indicate that the editor does not seem to grasp what's secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of these? We should give it the same treatment as the other one: reduce fluff and stubify. I'll keep an eye as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another one, and it's looking more and more like the anti-Landmark movement is digging trenches--see remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Anyway, I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was gut the article. Are there some parts of the article that are unacceptable and don't belong? Sure. But you removed over half the article, without any sort of prior discussion. "She has been interviewed" links to the articles that say in which capacity she was interviewed, referencing her various roles. I reverted your constructive edits, because you had made so many small edits that it was difficult to re-add (and discuss) any of the relevant material (even if you think it isn't). Instead of rampaging around, perhaps try discussing the content before you destroy other people's work? Zambelo; talk 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Malagurski

I'm trying to figure out if this person (Boris Malagurski) is notable enough to have his own article. With the majority of sources being foreign (from Serbia), how do I determine whether or not this article should exist on the English Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. There is no requirement that sources be in English--if most of them are in Serbian (or whatever), perhaps you can't make that determination (I couldn't either). Drmies (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking some folks at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Serbia. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: Some browsers allow for direct translation of the pages, Its not easy, because the translation is usually faulty, but you can probably verify if the statements are backed by the sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how would you determine if the sources are reliable? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again the wikiproject is a good place to start, but we have articles on several of the sources themselves, which would also be a good place to look Politika Nova srpska politička misao etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff, I came across this by accident and hope you don't mind me 'chipping in' here. There are/were ex-editors on BM pages, who were much more knowledgable than either of us about reliability of Balkan sources, sometimes, in the past it has come down to individuals as much as publications. An additional problem, is that many sources are 'feature articles', and it is probably true all over the world, that features are not fact-checked in the way that 'hard news' stories are. If the interviewee says something that sounds interesting, the feature writer will be inclined to include it (if it isn't libellous) - especially if the claim is made about something alleged to have happened half-way round the world.

The short answer to your opening question, is that within certain sub-cultures, which include FYR states and their diaspora communities, the film maker has a fairly modest fame/notoriety, outside those groups, nobody knows who he is. Whether that justifies several WP pages, is a matter I don't have an opinion on. There have in the past (I believe, as it was before 'my time') been attempts to delete some of these articles, which have usually narrowly failed. Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps however, anything that attracts the interest of neutral editors (inc. this post), can only be good for the pages .Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Heltne

@Bbb23 and Pietaster:

Pietaster and I have a disagreement over usage of a source on the Anca Heltne article. The subject was suspended for doping by the governing body for athletics, the IAAF. As a citation for this, I have added the IAAF's newsletter suspension list (which is the way the body publishes such information). Bbb23 believes this contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY, as this is a primary source, not a secondary one (meaning such material should not be published Wikipedia). I find this frankly absurd as the IAAF is the only authoritative source for people the IAAF doesn't allow to compete. This addition has been reverted several times now - should this statement be restored? SFB 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Pietaster's concern, based on this: if this is a significant issue, it should have been reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been reported in secondary sources.[10][11][12][13][14][15] --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no problem in including. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a few comments at this point. All the sources cited by GRuban are in Romanian. According to GRuban's user page, they speak Russian - don't know if they speak Romanian. There's nothing wrong with foreign sources as long as the person adding the source can state that the source supports the material. Second, because they are Romanian sources, I don't know how reliable they are. Finally, if we can all agree that these sources are reliable and support the material, I would cite both the IAAF decision and the secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with citing a primary source as long as it's coupled with a reliable secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and added a secondary source. SFB 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ola tidman

This page needs to be edited there is fictional content especially in the international section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.86.125 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The international section is fine, I just fixed/replaced all the dead links. Could you be more specific?--Auric talk 00:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

A situation has arisen where there is a conflict between WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and a BLP's own words. The BLP conducted an interview at Daily Mail. There are two points to consider:

Daily Mail is a tabloid journal and is therefore an undesirable or otherwise unreliable source per BLPSOURCES.
The BLP was interviewed by this paper, which is uncontested (not under dispute for fabrication, libel, etc.)

In this instance, tabloid journalism should not be considered. As this was a planned interview by both parties (BLP and source), unless there are accusations of misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism, then the interview should stand as a legitimate source. The BLP makes a statement and the Source prints it, entering into "the record". I cannot see how a BLP's own words cannot be used just because they come from an otherwise non-WP:RS.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed here in February, and John's unusual interpretation of BLP was not supported.[16] The reliability of this source has also been discussed many times previously.[17] At no time has the community ever blacklisted the source. However, John has taken it upon himself to blacklist it against consensus, and he has previously done this with other sources, such as People.[18] The community again admonished John for his misunderstanding of RS and BLP.[19] As you can see from that discussion, John's perspective isn't supported. BLP does not and never has trumped WP:V. Because there is nothing controversial nor disputed about the source content here, BLPSOURCES does not come into play. The interviewer is notable and has been recognized for her work by the Society of Editors National Press Awards[20] among other accolades, and the interview itself took place in the manager's office of the subject himself. Per V, we can cite this source, and we can evaluate it as reliable in this context. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail, like the Sun or the Daily Mirror is a tabloid (actually the Mail is currently the worst of the bunch) and cannot be used to support material concerning living people. BLP provides for using a higher standard of sourcing for articles about living people. BLPSOURCES is not framed in terms of "misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism"; instead it mandates that we avoid using sources with a generally poor reputation for fact-checking to support material on living people. I have emboldened the clause in policy which makes this clear, while quoting BLPSOURCES in its entirety.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Any editor editing or planning to edit in this area needs to read and understand this clause of BLP. To fail to do so is to run a risk of being blocked. It is important to note that there is no exemption for quotes or for interviews, contrary to what some editors seem to think. It disturbs me to hear editors editing in this sensitive area talk about "libel"; Wikipedia should use sources that do not leave us open to legal action for defamation, for sure, but like on image use policy, the test of whether we can use material is not and cannot be "is it likely that the subject will sue?" We aim higher than that and this excludes the possibility of using tabloids on BLPs in any but the most exceptional cases. These two quotes sourced to the Daily Mail do not constitute such an exception. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John, you just refuted your own argument. BLPSOURCES refers to "contentious material...that is unsourced or poorly sourced". We are not dealing with contentious material, so your continued appeal to BLPSOURCES is disproved. You've been told this many times by a great number of editors. We are dealing with a mundane interview conducted by a notable interviewer in the manager's office with the BLP. The community has consistently told you that there is nothing wrong with this source, so your continued appeal to "contentious" material when there's nothing contentious is simply a case of IDHT. There is no blacklist on using the Daily Mail as a source, and unless you can get one, you'll need to stop removing it from Wikipedia without the necessary evaluation in context. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Viriditas, you've just refuted your own argument. Contentious means "likely to cause people to argue or disagree".[21] The fact that we are arguing and disagreeing about it should act as a major clue in figuring out that this falls into our BLPSOURCES policy. I don't need a blacklist to disbar it; you would need a whitelist to allow it. If you wish to try to establish such a whitelist to allow the use of tabloids on BLPs, have at it. Until then I intend to enforce policy as it is written, not as you would like it to be written. --John (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can invent contentiousness just by being contentious. Whether the argumentativeness or disagreement is reasonable is another matter. There's a clue available in the history of this discussion. I hate the Daily Mail as much as any other grunt -- but disallowing it in this instance is ~~difficult~~ impossible to justify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I would like to take a moment to correct your misunderstanding of the word "contentious" in the context of the BLP policy, and how it relates to Verifiability. When I'm done, I hope you will admit the errors of your ways. "Contentious", in the context of the BLP policy, refers only to the content of the source, not to editors arguing about whether a source is reliable. You would know this if you truly understand the policy. For example, when the BLP policy refers to the word "contentious" in the above, it alludes to the Verifiability policy, namely "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". That's what contentious material means. When BLP says that "this policy extends that principle", it refers to "contentious material about living persons", not to "disputes between editors". The fact that we are arguing about your removal of the source from an article has nothing to do with how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, or how it is originally used in the Verifiability policy to refer, in both instances, to controversial content. The key to understanding this concept is this: we are not arguing, nor have we ever argued about problematic content. We have only argued about your continued removal of the source without regard to content, in contravention of consensus. Is your error clear now John, or does it need to be explained to you yet again? Based on this very simple explanation of how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, it should be clear to you now that your understanding of the word is in error and has now been corrected. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your interpretation of this fundamental policy. You may contend that this material is uncontroversial, but I consider it contentious. An example of the sort of exception I would allow would be where a BLP has written a column for a tabloid, then we could perhaps use the tabloid column as a reference for its own existence, though it would be preferable also to have a more reliable source to back it up. The two key principles which you need to properly internalise are:

BLP is about avoiding even the slim chance of harm to the living subjects of our articles. If there is doubt, we err on the side of not including suspect material.
Tabloids which regularly print lies about living people and then invite them to sue if they wish to challenge the lies, can never be considered as reliable sources for anything but their own opinions. They should never be used to source BLPs, and this is why the policy is framed the way it is.

If you don't understand these two principles, it would be better to stay well away from BLPs until you do. --John (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John, I quite clearly have an understanding of how BLPs work. Unfortunately, you do not, and your continued, ongoing battles with the community over BLP prove my point. If you won't concede the point, then in addition to asking arbcom to desysop you for abusing the tools, I will also ask them to ban you from all BLP articles. But let's stay on topic for now: just now, you've claimed the material is contentious. That's a new one on me, as you haven't ever claimed this material was contentious before, but I think anyone paying the slightest bit of attention will interpret your newfound faith in "contentious material" as furious backpedaling, which is fine by me, as you seem to be warming up to admitting your error. I'll take what I can get, so now that you have formally admitted your error in understanding the BLP policy, what pray tell is contentious about the source? Note, you said, and I quote, "I consider [the material] contentious". If you can't substantiate that statement, then you must concede the argument and admit that the source meets V and BLP, and your misunderstanding of BLP is to blame for your continued involvement in BLP disputes on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Can you please explain how this relates to tabloid journalism (i.e. sensationalist crime stories, astrology, gossip columns, or junk food news)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to admit that I'm just about as much of a BLP stickler as they come, but I don't see the problem with this source in this context; I agree that The Daily Mail has to be used with caution, but what we apparently have here is an uncontested interview with the biographical subject used to source basically-uncontroversial facts and statements about his own life. There's nothing about the statements which could be construed as negative or have negative implications toward another living person. If nothing else, this could be said to fall under the exemption for self-published/otherwise-unreliably-sourced statements by a biographical subject about themselves. John, I appreciate your zeal to defend BLP policy issues but I think this is a non-issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John and I disagree. I find the DM is a generally weak source for contentious claims about individuals (as are essentially all "celebrity articles" found in any newspapers including the Guardian, NYT etc.) but it meets WP:RS. The desire to blacklist any newspaper I find to be unfounded in WP:BLP or any other policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding something that you and I agree on is a pretty rare feat, I must say. Might be the first time, hopefully not the last. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I understand is our practice: No source is either totally reliable for all purposes or totally unreliable for all purposes. The Daily Mail and Sun are so unreliable in the way they deal with living people that there is good reason for a general rule that they should be avoided if possible in this area, and I think this is generally accepted. Even for non-contentious material, if a better source is available, it should be used. The question here is what about totally non-contentious material about living people for which it is the only source, such as an exclusive interview. The question here is whether they can be trusted to report the interview properly, and present the material in context. I'm not sure they can, but we need some discussion focussed around this particular point. DGG ( talk ) 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: "Exclusive interviews" tend not to appear in multiple sources. In this case, the DM is the single and best (only) source for the interview, and interviews tend to reflect what the interviewee says, thus not in the category of being "sensational anonymous allegations" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with DGG and Collect, on the whole. Such sources are to be handled with care, and in this case I personally don't have much of a problem with this source for that factoid. Still, the question of whether this needs a larger (and somewhat formalized) discussion is valid: if there isn't a blacklist, that's a start already. Much of this could have been avoided if a. that discussion on the talk page had been formally concluded by an admin (or if it had been a real RfC, which is what I proposed on the talk page) and b. if Lithistman hadn't jumped the gun (in my opinion), citing a clear consensus when, to me, there was no clear consensus yet. BLP requires a bit more than a couple of editors suggesting that for this particular edit this source is fine. Anyway, if you care, you can read my lengthy comment on the talk page, explaining a. my revert (one single one) and b. my protection. And all of that is really standard fare, in the absence of a clearly established consensus. I see that Floquenbeam has just commented on that talk page and that's where I'm headed. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the quibble here is in regards to a source that is generally regarded as rubbish being used as a citation for a quote by the subject on his upbringing? We're not robots, we can think & reason when there may be exceptions to the project's best practices (i.e. "don't use tabloids in BLPs"). There shouldn't be a problem with using the DM in this instance. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- When it's a quote from a source that is generally regarded as rubbish, how do we know the quote is an accurate one? What difference would it make that it purports to be a quote from an "exclusive interview"? If anything, I think quotes need a higher standard of verifiability than non-quoted material. --John (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Because a source "that is generally regarded as rubbish", is not the same thing as a source that is always regarded as rubbish. Please have a look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as it deals with this very issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, conversely, sources that generally are regarded as reliable can sometimes contain falsehoods. We have a substantial article on Criticism of the BBC, yet I find BBC News is generally accepted as a source. And see the discussion on Talk:Nic Potter for an occasion where a usually reliable source turned out not to be. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I think you might be surprised to find that the reliability of sources like the BBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal aren't so far from the Daily Mail. For example, just this week, the BBC was taken to task for creating, what appears to most neutral observers, to be a complete and total falsehood about the environmental group Friends of the Earth.[22] Luckily, the Daily Mail was there to accurately cover the dispute.[23] Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion, all sources are of equal quality? --John (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like someone to produce an article on BBC News that has the same tenacity as claiming that using Facebook causes cancer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin misconduct

Lets stick to the issue at hand shall we?

Please note that this has been discussed extensively on the article talk pages and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff.[24] Despite this consensus, admins have gone insane and are actually blocking editors over this. First, Viriditas was blocked by WP:INVOLVED admin John[25] which was thankfully overturned by PhilKnight. But now Lithistman has been blocked by HJ Mitchell.[26] I've reached out to HJ Mitchell[27] but no response so far. We cannot have admins blocking editors for correctly following policy. This is insane and it needs to stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It is proper to require a positive consensus for inclusion of material - and unless and until such a consensus is demonstrated, it is reasonable for an admin to enforce that rule. Do I think John's block was wise? Not the issue. Was it "misconduct" per se? No. There is no "deadline" on Wikipedia, and so the proper course is to determine consensus on the article talk page (noting that consensus can not override policy and anyone closing an RfC or the like can weigh those arguments.) Collect (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A positive consensus for inclusion of material was established. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks that way, yeah. That said, obviously Lithistman should have waited for this discussion to wind down, if only to have a firmer consensus to back his edits. But the block is troubling nonetheless. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the time this thread was started, Drmies had already successfully gotten me blocked with that... "odd" RFPP request. (Note: I don't blame HJ Mitchell for blocking, as the situation is fairly complex and not obvious at first blush. I do wish he'd have given me a chance to explain what was happening before blocking me, but that's a minor quibble, relatively speaking, with Drmies behavior, both as an admin and an editor. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were correctly blocked for edit warring, which is what you did--three times you reverted. You didn't need me to do it, and given that you said that there was "clear" consensus on the material, that you say "the situation is fairly complex" is in blatant contradiction. Besides, I don't agree with your suggestion that HJ Mitchell is too simple-minded to see through complex things. But hey, you got to yell "admin abuse", so good for you. And the request wasn't very odd, was it. Article needs protection, RFPP is notified, the fact that one editor invokes BLP was correctly represented. Nothing odd about that. So I don't really see the problem here--and you won't explain on ANI, so we should let this rest, I suppose, and I graciously accept your apology for your unsubstantiated accusations. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you've edit warred against me and Lithistman in the last month, and yet you were not "correctly blocked", even after a 3RR was appropriately filed.[28][29] Care to explain the disconnect? Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material is undue in a BLP regardless of sourcing

Reviewing this big mess, the actual material seems to be based on the actor making a funny claim about themselves. If a celebrity said in an interview "I'm a wild man", then there would be no rational argument that we should include something like "The subject eschews all civilisation, not unlike our earliest ancestors." or any mention at all, really. This is giving more weight to a throwaway comment by the actor than better reliable sources give it. The arguments about reliability are beside the point; we don't include all material that we can verify. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken, and as such, your argument is invalid. The actual material being used is neither funny nor trivial, and supports important and relevant information in the article. I'm afraid you've either reviewed the wrong source or you are responding to the wrong noticeboard thread. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh -- the material I read was quite tame indeed. I am a tad strict about BLPs and I find no such "funny claim" in the edit at issue ([30] does not seem problematic in any way at all). Collect (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect here. What exactly about the sourced material qualifies as "the actor making a funny claim about themselves"? Genuinely curious about this. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the source and the quotes that are the subject of this quest? Elaqueate is right; as well as coming from a truly awful source, these quotes are the veriest fluff. --John (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "quest" I see is your own. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'll take that as a "no". That would explain why you were getting the name of the source wrong. Read it, and then tell me why you are so sure these quotes are a) reliably sourced and b) enhance the article. --John (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can "take that" however the hell you want. I don't comment on BLP issues in which I haven't read the sources in question. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Care to answer the question then? --John (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You chose to ignore my answer. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, Elaqueate hasn't given us anything to go on, and since you have personally taken up his argument against the content (which I'm glad to see as it gives us something to actually discuss) then I hope you will point out directly how the article on John Barrowman uses this source to support "quotes [that are the] veriest fluff". I should note, however, that if this is your only contention, then you should be reminded that a dispute about the usage of material, in terms of whether it is trivial or not, is completely independent from the reliability of a source. Nevertheless, you are attempting to argue that there is a connection, but you haven't yet made that case. So I must ask you to prove your case: what are these exact quotes that are currently being used as trivia from this source? Please highlight them here, otherwise you must forfeit your argument in favor of Elaqueate's position. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elaqueate about this, but deliberately didn't include it in my response above to avoid confusing multiple issues. I think that quotations from interviews and the like, about their childhood motivations or otherwise undocumented aspects of their upbringing, are both trivial and self-promotional. The only possible source in most cases can be the person themselves saying whatever they please--or whatever their press agent has suggested that they say. Even when said with the best intentions, the factual reliability of such anecdotes and memories is notorious. If they are used at all, as they might be in the case of famous people where the accounts are repeated by true third party unaffiliated sources,they need to be prefaced by a phrase like "according to themselves" for things such as their first commercial or artistic endeavor, or their family environment, or the inspiration & support given to them by their parents. It's not irrelevant in understanding artists and to some extent other people, but the nature of the information is usually dubious. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: could you please address the specific source under discussion and demonstrate how it is being used to highlight what you describe as "trivial" and "self-promotional" content? I am unable to confirm your claim, and since you are speaking theoreticallly, your comments aren't helpful towards resolving the current discussion. You've attempted to argue that there could be a problem with the cited content, and that their might be an issue, but you haven't actually addressed the source under discussion and shown us a problem. This kind of unsubstantiated speculation really has no place here. I would also like to address your unusual claim about quotations from interviews about the early life a of subject. As it turns out, the use of such interviews to fill out biographical details is mundane and quite common, not just on Wikipedia, but in the best secondary sources. So I must take serious issue with your comments, and I must note that your 1) speculation about the source is irrelevant, as you must directly address the source under discussion, and 2) your personal opinion about how quotations from interviews are used in highly irregular, and diverges from both common practice on Wikipedia and in the biographical literature in general. Therefore, we must dismiss your entire argument as a whole. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, a reliable secondary source can evaluate, and do original research , to establish the veracity of material. We cannot. Therefore, we must not make general claims without sources that actually support them. Quotes from an interview with a person, obviously, represent what he wants to say, and are not a truly independently source, no matter where they are published. If someone is, for example, asked if his family was happy and says yes, does it mean that it was, or even that he really thinks so? (Or in a different situation not involving this article, if someone says he has been influenced by a particular artist or philosopher, all it means is that he wants to say he has been. The only people who can validly say he actually has been, are sources qualified to do original research and make judgements. We can use what somebody says about themselves for the plain facts about his life--and only if uncontested and noncontroversial, not the interpretations of it. As for common practice at WP, I'd estimate that at least half of our biographical articles have content that would not meet current standards. As for the general usefulness of the Mail in any subject, see the various comments below. (But if you'll check my comments on the article in question, I've supported the use of the Mail in this particular case DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Coterie"? That isn't very nice. I note here that as Viriditas apparently thinks that all sources are of roughly equivalent reliablility, we should take his views on this subject with a pinch of salt. Most of us aspire to be more discriminating than that; some sources are definitely better than others. --John (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I arrive as the result of a certain morbid fascination: Just what is all the fuss surrounding this article about? (I've not heard of the biographee other than in this article and the talk around it -- only a small percentage of which I've read.) The Mail is dreadful, and infamously open to passing off mere fiction as fact (see the article Daily Mail); but I get the impression that celebs are its specialty. The stream of celeb titillation down the right hand side of the page is unlike (say) the Guardian, the percentage of short paragraphs is higher, and the number of photos higher; otherwise it doesn't seem so different from the cheesiest sections of the Guardian. If the celeb isn't known to have complained, can't we take ostensible accounts of what he said as accounts of what he said? Assuming for a moment that he did indeed say it, DGG is right to point out (i) that we don't know whether he believes what he says; and (ii) that even if he does believe what he says there's no particular reason to believe that it's correct. But I see three general assertions within the edit pointed to above; all three are humdrum (by which I don't mean that they're necessarily credible), and for two of the three the reader doesn't have to look in the reference in order to see that this is what Barrowman recalls/concludes. Yes, it's all pretty worthless, but it's the kind of thing that's routinely worked into third-person accounts (in hack journalism as well as Wikipedia), and it does indicate how Barrowman likes to present himself. If it should be removed, then a vast quantity of similar stuff should be removed as well. (Not a removal that I'd vehemently oppose.)

In general, I'm inclined to take the Guardian seriously (if sceptically) and the Mail not at all. If (or in so far as) the credibility of the Mail is the issue here, then I note that this piece in the Guardian has the man saying the same thing about his eight years in Glasgow. (My own hunch is that this particular bit of the Guardian shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that particular bit of the Mail.) Considering that it only took me seconds to find this (googling "john barrowman" glasgow site:theguardian.com), I guess that the other nuggets people want (if worthwhile at all) can be sourced elsewhere too. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If The Mail is factually correct, which in this case it is, then why should another source be used. There is nothing contentious about the statement.Blethering Scot 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked again and again since February 2014, and not once have we received a reasonable reply. Instead we are told, "It doesn't matter if it is correct, the Daily Mail can't be used as a reliable source". The only problem is, this opinion is 100% incorrect, and our best policies and guidelines don't support it. This opinion belongs to Johh, and his small coterie of admirers who believe they can create a blacklist of sources they dislike without community consensus. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, I'm afraid. There is reliable and multiple sourcing that the Mail is not a reliable source - one only has to look at the number of times they've been forced to retract and apologise. Any swift persual of relevant sources will prove that. This does not, of course, mean that everything - or even a majority of its output - that is printed in the Mail is lies - if it was, the paper would have not lasted as long as it has. But where BLPs are involved, we should not be using it - that is simple logic. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said is nonsense, and it looks like you misread what I said. We don't have a blacklist against the Daily Mail or Fox News for the same reasons, even though both sources have retracted and apologized in equal amounts. Fox News even went to court to get permission to lie, which they are now allowed to do in the United States by law. If you aren't familiar with that case, then you should be, because that would mean every Fox News source should be removed from Wikipedia; however, that's not going to happen. Sources make mistakes, sources lies, whether for political or some other reason. If you are the least bit familiar with journalism, then I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. However, John is waging his own personal one-man campaign against the Daily Mail and against not just our policies, but also against consensus, and this isn't the first time he's done this. He tried the same exact thing against People magazine and failed miserably when dozens of Wikipedians showed up and told him to stop. And now, he's doing it again, this time with the Daily Mail. Again, unless you can find something wrong with the source we are talking about, then there is nothing stopping us from using it. I've already demonstrated that the interviewer has won accolades for her writing, and she's considered a trusted source. I've also noted that the interview is not disputed. Only one objection has been presented so far, and it consists of an editor claiming that the material is "funny", "trivial", and "fluff", all of which is untrue. The material is serious, relevant, and important to the biography. This discussion does not reveal a single objection to the use of this specific source rooted in policy or in some kind of substantial, tangible issue with the content. What we have is one long IDONTLIKEIT argument, that originated with John and memetically spread to his small band of supporters. That argument could be made about any source, from the New York Times (An entire publication called "Lies of Our Times" exists to point out its daily, glaring inaccuracies) to the BBC (who was taken to task for making erroneous claims about Friends of the Earth just this week) to Fox News (of which entire films, books and doctoral theses have been written highlighting its penchant for lies). None of those sources, however, are blacklisted, and there isn't a single policy or guideline that disallows the use of the Daily Mail in this particular case. Creating straw men, distracting the topic by attacking other editors, or cherry picking selective problems with other articles from the same source doesn't disqualify the source. In short, there is no good argument in this discussion that addresses problems with the content nor with this particular usage, and therefore, no good argument to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AS you'll see from my previous comment on this (which I think is below, I've lost track now), I'm not raising an issue with this particular story, I'm just pointing out the more general issues with using the Mail in BLPs - and thus pointing out that using an alternative source is immensely preferable. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've taken issue with that argument, noting that 1) we evaluate sources on a case by case basis, we don't disallow a major source automatically, and 2) the source in question needs to be discussed specifically, not generalized as to what might be wrong with it or what could be wrong with it. Several editors here have speculated about whether it could be "funny", "trivial" or "fluff", but have yet to actually demonstrate these odd claims, and furthermore, 3) the interviewer has a reputation for reliability, and there does not appear to be anything controversial about the content, and 4) alternative sources are not necessarily preferable or necessary when there is nothing wrong with the source under discussion. Finally, the problem isn't that other, better sources might exist, the problem is that this source is being dismissed out of hand, which no policy supports. In order to dismiss this source and end this discussion in favor of removal, someone has to raise an issue with this particular story. The problem, of course, is that since this issue was first raised in February 2014, nobody has been able to find anything wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed I was pinged on Barrowman's talk page about supporting the Daily Mail as a reliable source. Just to put this into context, my view is that calling anything a "reliable source" by a binary yes / no is naive. My view of the Daily Mail is similar to Hoary's - I avoid using it at a source, as it is well known for having a right wing POV in many of its articles. However, it is also the best selling British daily newspaper and hence something people will aspire to be in, and therefore in certain circumstances, pop culture celebrities do "exclusive" interviews in it. In those circumstances it can be used as a source to clarify additional details of a professional career with care. It should never be used as the dominant source in a BLP, I probably would take a hardline view of not using it for political BLPs except when stating the view of itself, and it should be avoided if a better source becomes available, but some of the pop culture articles are not particularly different to, say, BBC News Magazine. With that in mind, I examined this diff. Are we disagreeing or challenging Barrowman spending the first eight years of his life in Glasgow, or simply disputing that the Mail is a "tabloid", a contentious remark in itself?

Personally I would keep the claim for the length of time in Glasgow (using the Guardian source), but delete the other challenged claim about the views on his family, since that is not an integral part of his career and doesn't invalidate the "broad in coverage" criteria that a GA requires. That would then render any tags moot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have anything in any policy whatsoever which says "right wing sources should not be used" and, in the case at hand, there is no political connection in the article, making that a silly cavil. The source is an "exclusive interview" and is not "celebrity gossip" for which even the Guardian is not a good source. I tend to not like "gossip" no matter the source, and this is not in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Mail is not that it is "right-wing" (in which case one could equally discard the Guardian for being "left-wing") but simply that it has a very long track record of simply making stories up (the famous flood of Romanian immigration, George Clooney's mother-in-law, and this made up trial account this year alone) and then burying a retraction in the corner of Page 29 when they get found out. You'd have to consider whether the Mail actually made that quote up. I doubt they did, even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews, but it is certainly better to cite it with another source if the section is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting claim-- but I found no examples of the DM "making up" exclusive interviews by well-known interviewers. Might you provide such an example, as the ones you provide are not at all remotely near the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Black Kite said, though, as he said, "even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews" (they could be sued for libel). In general, I would say all news sources should be approached carefully, paying attention to context, and ideally replaced in the long term by book sources that can comment on situations in a partisan view from an arm's length. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the Mail is a step up from The Sun, whose track record for lying is in a whole different league. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has been part & parcel of my argument in favor of including the Mail as a source in this particular instance, for this particular interview from the start. I've asked (but not receieved any answer) John how he thought BLPSOURCES interacted with CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. Since I've receieved no response there, I'd be interested in getting views from some of you. The way I see it, CONTEXTMATTERS was written for cases like this, wherein a generally unreliable source publishes something that, in context, is reliable. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for John, but just now I spotted a cite to the Daily Mail for Max Clifford's recent divorce and swapped it for the Daily Telegraph. It took about 30 seconds, and avoids the recent kerfuffle we've had over this. That's something seriously worth considering. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question, though, was how CONTEXTMATTERS interacts with BLPSOURCES. If an exclusive interview done by the Mail doesn't qualify under CONTEXTMATTERS, what ever would? And if nothing from the Mail ever qualifies, then it should be blacklisted and we could have done with it. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you improved the article in the way I just described, then it renders your question completely moot and avoids drama. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. But the question I have is policy-related. Is there ever a situation in which you envision the Mail being an acceptable source, given CONTEXTMATTERS? If not, why not just blacklist it and be done? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters, of course. But CONTEXTMATTERS is a section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which is a guideline, whereas BLPSOURCES is a policy. Policy trumps guideline, in bureaucratic terms. On common sense grounds we cannot use material from sources that are generally unreliable on articles about living people. In that sense, the existing wording of BLPSOURCES already acts as a blacklist of this type of source for BLPs. There might be particular cases where we could use extremely uncontroversial material, but why bother? Certainly in this case the sources are non-compliant with our existent policy. And as nearly everybody here has said, this material is highly trivial and does not improve the article. Source it properly or remove the badly-sourced fluff from the article. I think at this point we have a consensus to exclude this material, but let's wait until everybody who wishes to contribute has done so. --John (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete nonsense. First, nobody has shown how any "fluff" is being used from the source. This was an unsubstantiated claim made up above that was never supported. In other words, nobody has shown there is any "badly-sourced fluff" being used. This is just a straw man. You'll need to actually show that trivial content is being used to make this a valid argument. I should also like to point out that there has never been a blacklist of the Daily Mail. The reason it is rarely used on Wikipedia is because within the last year or so, John has unilaterally removed the sources without consensus from every article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with John here. For an illuminating / horrifying account by a Mail interviewee involving serious misquotation amounting to downright lies, try this rather lengthy piece -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC recently did the exact same thing you accused the Mail of doing, and it involved what you describe as "serious misquotation amounting to downright lies"'.[31] According to the Ecologist, the BBC source "is replete with other outrageous twists. There is something alarming when any journalist writes an article like this. It is more alarming that the BBC environment analyst is doing this. Perhaps it is not surprising given that two BBC Trust figureheads of this world-respected media organisation are paid advisers to EdF..it is remakable that BBC Trust members can receive money from such corporate interests - and even advise them on how to use the UK media to clinch one of the biggest multi-billion pound deals in British history."[32] Using your argument, should we now blacklist all BBC articles? Of course not, and this is why your argument fails. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously clearly factual matter on which the Mail would be reliable. But for those, it is unlikely that it would be the only source, and could thus be replaced. I wouldn't use the Mail for anything remotely related to a BLP, ever. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think this discussion has served a useful purpose because it helped to further analyse tabloid material and its potential for inclusion in a BLP. I think that the majority of the material originating from tabloids is probably fluff. But fluff, even from reliable sources, should be excluded from articles. Ergo, fluff from tabloids should be avoided. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, not even an exclusive interview, granted only to the Mail, would qualify the Mail as a reliable source, then? That seems overly-cautious. Also, although John claims consensus for removal above, I see nothing of the sort. I see useful discussion, but nothing resembling a consensus that an exclusive interview granted only to the Mail wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for a BLP. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have the name of the publication right now! In a week or so we will get a neutral admin to close this and it will be up to them how they do so. Meantime, if you have any good arguments or rationales for why you think it is ok to use a rag from the gutter with a reputation for printing lies to support material on a living person on a project that has BLPSOURCES as a policy, why not state them here? It would be more helpful than trying to second-guess what the consensus will be judged as. --John (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop with the BS about the name thing. It's unhelpful, and you know damn well that both the Mirror and the Mail were being discussed. I even explained it to you. And given your behavior at that talkpage, and in this message, I have no further interest in interacting with you. Any further responses by you to me will go ignored. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LHM, they are intentionally baiting you. Just ignore it and address the underlying problem. If you look closely, you'll find they are relying on fallacies and evasions to make their case, which will make it easy to address their arguments. I will begin to do so up above. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of fluff and Barrowman

I have no interest (in any sense of the word) in John Barrowman. But I'm a bit surprised to read (or misread) that a statement (which as I've pointed out can easily be sourced to the Guardian) that he spent 8 years in Glasgow is "fluff". And further, that WP shouldn't include "fluff".

I have no more interest in Mariah Carey than I do in Barrowman. But at least I'd heard of Carey before coming across her in WP. I think it's safe to assume that her article here is much examined. Here (after markup stripping) is a not atypical sample of what has survived such examination:

On July 19, 2001, Carey made a surprise appearance on the MTV program Total Request Live (TRL). As the show's host Carson Daly began taping following a commercial break, Carey came out pushing an ice cream cart while wearing a large men's shirt, and began a striptease, in which she shed her shirt to reveal a tight yellow and green ensemble. While she later revealed that Daly was aware of her presence in the building prior to her appearance, Carey's appearance on TRL garnered strong media attention. Only days later, Carey began posting irregular voice notes and messages on her official website: "I'm trying to understand things in life right now and so I really don't feel that I should be doing music right now. What I'd like to do is just a take a little break or at least get one night of sleep without someone popping up about a video. All I really want is [to] just be me and that's what I should have done in the first place ... I don't say this much but guess what, I don't take care of myself."

It's not obvious to me that the article on Barrowman has an unusually high amount or percentage of fluff. I'd read any plea to strip WP of fluff with interest and some sympathy, but suggest that (i) what you or I regard as mere fluff about a given subject is often thought of great interest by those with enough interest in that subject to want to write it up; (ii) a plea to strip it all is better left for another day. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have "an unusually high amount" of fluff. It just happens to have used a source for an exclusive interview that some here seem to want to see blacklisted. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful quote. Before I go over to that article to clean it up, here is one of the two nuggets we are discussing having on a BLP, sourced to the worst of sources: "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." On a fluff scale of 1 to 10, where would you place it? --John (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. I'd have to be told something like "Given that [quote 1] is 3 and [quote 2] is 8 on a fluff scale of 1 to 10,...". It's pretty bad, but the amount of hot air expended over it seems out of proportion to its badness. -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Leach-Cross Feldman

Article is Martin Leach-Cross Feldman. The problem is not specifically an edit, but rather a grossly insulting edit description for the edit. The diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Leach-Cross_Feldman&oldid=624081130 The user was Special:Contributions/107.35.133.183 and was the one and only edit by that IP. The edit occurred back on September 3, 2014. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the edit summary. Thanks for your vigilance! --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chino Rodriguez

Some one has delete many items from the Chino Rodriguez profile on Wikipedia Chino Rodriguez, profile was posted years ago. It remained untouched until this year 2014. The entire profile had all notifications and certifications in place and linked for verification the entire item has been vandalized and no one at Wikipedia has returned the deletions back as it was - everything was correct and verified... is this how the editors at Wikipedia control the information that was posted years ago and information that was verified, certified and had links proving the validity of the living profile ??? ... editors should review what was posted years ago and remained until it was vandalized recently. The person or persons which delete the information is trying to re-write history and eliminate the truth, this is not right and not fair to the public interested in preserving the truth and history of Latin Music events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.58.20 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the biography was previously filled with material which was improperly sourced, or not sourced at all, along with vast swathes of material on subjects which had nothing to do with Rodriguez's notability as a musician. We do not use unpublished anonymous and unverifiable 'interviews' and the like as sources, and nor are we interested in every minor detail of Rodriguez's career in IT and so on. The article was not 'vandalised', it was edited to conform to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, as laid out in Wikipedia policies in guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Iohannis

This article refers to Klaus Iohannis, the mayor of Sibiu, Romania and a presidential candidate in the upcoming Romanian election. Someone has tampered with his name for what appear to be political reasons, adding "6 Houses" to it, a reference to political accusations that he owns 6 houses and would thus be "abnormally wealthy".

Y Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Stanley

A new controversy this week involving this individual is now 72% of the article text. My attempt to invoke WP:UNDUE has been met with the response "I'm going to file a formal complaint against you". I have a project deadline today and don't have time to get into protracted discussion about an obvious policy violation, so if some other editors could intervene please, I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I'll just invoke BLP protect the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm the person who made that response. Gamaliel is the one in violation, by not discussing things and, instead, acting unilaterally. Please see item 10 on the article's TALK page; note that I am simply insisting that we figure it out, together, before Gamaliel just unilaterally effectively vandalizes the article. Please read what I have written in item item 10 of the article's TALK page. I, too, am busy. I'll see Gamaliel's project, and point-out that I was just diagnosed with esophageal cancer, with a 20% chance of five year survival; and am spending most of my time, today, making sure that I get into the clinical trial at University of California San Francisco, into which I was invited, so that I might actually live. I don't have time to keep reversing Gamaliel's actions -- his/her effective vandalisms -- which s/he keeps doing instead of just talking it out, first; and allowing others to chime-in. S/he is an example of what happens when an editor becomes too self-important, and officious, and has forgotten how this place works!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This place works by adhering to policies like WP:UNDUE. I don't care at all what that the article says about this issue, write it however you want, but policy dictates that it cannot take up 72% of the article. Neither one of us has the time to devote to this today, so why don't we both drop it? There will be plenty of time to get a mutually agreed version in place later. I wish you well in your fight against cancer. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chimed in on article talk page. Best of luck in fighting cancer. --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control activist's Joseph Goebbels comment

Moms Demand Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Yglesias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has repeatedly inserted text into this article about a twitter comment made by a regional leader of this organization agreeing with a quote from Joseph Goebbels.[33] The material is sourced to a blog, which does not meet WP:RS. The text of the comment is inflammatory, stating that the activist "posted support for" Goebbels, when the activist agreed with a quote from Goebbels. The notability of this incident has not been established by reliable secondary sources (nor has anything else).

The same editor has also added text about Matthew Yglesias receiving the "Dumbest Blogger on the Internet" award. No source was provided, nor is there any evidence that the award is notable.[34]GabrielF (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Moms Demand Action edit was a clear and unambiguous WP:BLP violation - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the Matthew Yglesias edit - though I see it has already been reverted. Given the edit-warring at Moms Demand Action (3RR violation) along with the BLP issues, I think a block is a certainty - I'll ask at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

theron smith

Hello I am this Theron Smith and when my name is searched it says I died in 2010 can this please be changed? Thank you for your time 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.153.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says nothing about this - are you sure you were looking at Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Google that's giving that information; while Google gets some of their biographical information from Wikipedia, they mark Wikipedia as the source when they do. That's not what's happening in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped a note in the appropriate place to Google; no idea how long it will take them to address it, if they will. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, when (for instance) Google was pulling the wrong image for a person, they fixed it within a matter of a couple days once notified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Foist

As management for Shaun Foist, a Wikipedia page was created for him with the required criteria for a public figure, and is currently under review by Wikipedia. However, this poorly written page somehow became live on Wikipedia as we await this approval. I would like to request that this page be removed and the one created by myself, which meets the threshold for verifiable links and information, replace it. Your kind consideration is greatly appreciated.

I realize that simply replacing information on the existing page is something that can be done, but I have spent hours creating the page which is currently under review and do not wish to duplicate the effort, if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the draft submission, though really what I want to do is a selective merge from the draft to the mainspace version. Both versions have their own problems, as good writing isn't enough - BLPs need to be verifiable to high quality sources. For example, you can't say "Shaun received rave reviews ...." and then cite a single review piece. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the references in both versions of the article, I'm dubious that even merging would give us an article that would pass muster on notability concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #6, though Picture Me Broken looks like a potential AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question whether his current "ensemble" qualifies either for granting him notability; it seems not yet clear that the new formation under that band name is notable in itself. It doesn't seem too broad a reading that it is meant to include performers who are part of the notability of said band, rather than people who come on board legacy acts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My next question would be - how did the original EVEN go live, with less than stellar content? At the very least, I did the submission via Wiki protocol. How did the one currently live even GET live??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we strongly encourage individuals with a conflict of interest (such as a performer's management) to go through the Articles For Creation process, that is not our default method of creating new articles. Most articles are created "live". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory D. Hague Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be nothing more than one attorney's attempt to advertise. I don't know if it is a proper subject for a Wikipedia article.

If it is, perhaps I should create a similar one about myself.

Michael H. Prosser

Please let us know why you delete the list of his books whereas I see other living people have included it and they have not been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoureh Sharifzadeh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Stuartyeates removed the overwhelming list of books stating "this is not a cv". Meatsgains (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations

Basically an attack-job citing non-RS blog posts, tweets, and other self-published sources. Article will probably be deleted soon, but while it's up at least it should respect BLP conventions. Attempts to scrub BLP violations and rename to NPOV title repeatedly reverted by original author. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any uninvolved admins/experienced editors reading this? The AfD can be safely closed now as a snow delete. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually looked at the sources on the article? And what is the specific BLP violation being alleged? Kelly ^hi! 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well that's not surprising considering the number of times that blog appeared in the references section of the article. In fact almost the entire thing was sourced to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed more once I looked into it. Just ran into that link on a different matter, and then saw the same words on my Watchlist. Serendipity of sorts. Wasn't trying to be Captain Obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

In regards to sourcing - no, not really. The main sources were The Washington Post, The Week, Physics Today, The Daily Beast, The Tampa Tribune, and others. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Kelly appears to be trying to force the dodgy sources into List_of_Wikipedia_controversies also, Second Quantization (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Force? National Review and The Weekly Standard are reliable sources according to the archives of ~~this very~~ the reliable sources noticeboard. Kelly ^hi! 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira - Fan "ownership" resulting in Lack of NPOV

Fan of Lira authoring a bio religiously since 2006, will not allow article to be adjusted to NPOV Even minor edits to fact are not possible. Talk:Gonzalo_Lira

--Did not realize there is another Notice on same issue

-- User_talk:MILH <will block all edits, minor, factual, major - "as owner" — Preceding

Talk illustrates why a minor changes needed to be made with NPOV examples illustrated from other biographies. Immediate reversion of any change confirms ownership problem. Talk versus the edit history prove bad faith

Lfrankbalm (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Lfrankbalm has been trolling this entry under anonymous IP addresses 173.68.144.130 (talk) (which eventually led to his being banned), and IP address 200.73.224.212.

User Lfrankbalm has a clear personal animus towards the subject. Hence I've been patrolling his edits, which he has made under the guise of NPOV.

—MILH (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/172-opinion/51200-premakeerthis-killers-still-alive-.html

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramya20

[1]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards