Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InstantSnapFeedback (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 18 January 2015 (→‎Repeated vandalism on Biography of Living Person (Polaroid Kiss Music Band): Clarified my position on this micro-drama.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    BLP concerns at Stevens–Johnson syndrome

    Per a request at the helpdesk, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Request_to_change_a_picture (now archived at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2015_January_8#Request_to_change_a_picture), it would appear that there are BLP issues with the use of this image...? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ultimately they'd have to file a ticket through ORTS that confirms that this is their brother. I'd wager that from a legal perspective the picture is sound, as the patient probably signed away the rights for the image when he went in for treatment with the doctor (likely was listed in fine print under something like "patient gives the right for the doctor to use the image in a teaching context, blah blah blah"). However as far as personal privacy goes, if the claims are legit and the IP can prove this is the case, then odds are that the image would be deleted due to the request of the depicted individual. It'd be a shame to see the image go since it would be fairly helpful for the article, but we should also respect the personal privacy of the individual in the picture. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPBLP and Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Personality_rights dont we need affirmative release of content that will connect and individual to a disease and not just assumption that the doctor got appropriate permissions? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What standard doses the person claiming its their brother have to meet? BakerStMD T|C 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is: where is the proof the the subject has agreed to be publicly identified as a person with SJ. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nadia Marcinko

    Nadia Marcinko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An IP editor recently inserted material sourced to The Guardian, see diff. The Guardian strikes me as a reliable source, and its report specifically mentions the subject of the article, but another editor regards the report as unreliable, and has reverted the addition. See User_talk:JohnInDC#Civil_cases. It seems to me to be an obvious Keep for the article, and have restored the material with a couple of clarifying edits, but I confess to not being too well versed in the nuances of BLP issues, and figure just to raise the issue here straightaway. Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Guardian is reliable, but I would definitely proceed with caution here due to the nature of the allegations. So far I'm not seeing a huge amoutn of coverage for this in reliable sources. I do see coverage in The Daily Beast, Daily Mail, and Colorado NewsDay, but that's about it. I'd probably lean towards removing it in this instance since it's just an allegation and so far nobody has really picked up on the story. However at the same time since these stories are fairly "new" (meaning that the Guardian article was from only a few days ago), if this is covered more in the news then that could probably change. It's just that right now none of this is confirmed (ie, they were only questioned in regards to allegations), no charges were filed, and the coverage is insanely light. Given that this is pretty contentious stuff, we'd really want to have the most high quality sources possible and they just don't seem to exist right now. If more sources/coverage does occur then it'd probably warrant re-adding to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found coverage in Business Insider (Jan. 6) and The Telegraph (Jan 5) along the same lines as what you located; there is also an abundance of material from 2006-08, not all of it high-quality, but still including ABC News (July 2006). It seems that prior events are pretty well established and that the only issue here is one of identity, which can be sourced quite recently to at least The Guardian, Daily Mail and Colorado Newsday. Am I missing something? Thanks BTW for your quick response to my initial question. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that, considering Alan Dershowitz has filed law suits in 2 countries, claiming that the girls claims are fraudulent, to repeat the "assisting in a prostitution case", based on the claims in these 12 year old allegation's could end up getting a law suit for Defamation slapped upon this site by Alan Dershowitz himself. I have reviewed the police report, and it make NO mention of this person in the roll that John in DC has placed upon her page "prostitute". Frankly speaking, if I was her, at this junction I would join Dershowitz and hit this site, as well as the one that stole my photo with a restraining order, and any judge would grant it. Why on earth would this accuser wait for 13 years and then come out of the woodworks with this claim. (answer: MONEY) Are we sure that is the route to go with this story? The UK is far more liberal, in regard to defamation and slander, then the US media is. You really don't see "that allegation" in any responsible US publication. I am going to remove the concerning comment until a reasonable consensus is obtained here and perhaps a admin chimes in here out of an abundance of caution. talk→ WPPilot  14:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The original events (potential charges, 5th Amendment responses) were reasonably well reported at the time and since (in addition to ABC News above see Broward Palm Beach New Times, Daily Mail), and there are multiple UK sources connecting current with past events. Again I don't profess any particular expertise in BLP matters but I also don't see any particular reason to doubt the truth of what is being (multiply) reported and so, other than possible Weight issues, am not sure what the objection would be. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is JohninDC's addition: "According to one article, Marcinkova was identified by prosecutors as one of four “potential co-conspirators” in the Epstein's prosecution for soliciting underage girls for prostitution, and, while never charged." The Wiki is about "Nadia Marcinko" and we have one publication that has claimed this is the same person. So far that is not enough to toss this girl, under the bus, and is a direct violation of BLP. So far we have a ton of assumptions an no proof whatsoever that this is not a direct violation of BLP as noted here above. This is an outright assertion that this girl is a criminal even though we are not totally sure, as JohninDC mentiones that this is even the same person. talk→ WPPilot  15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "potential co-conspirator" is vague and inflammatory and is best avoided. But the sources above make it clear that a person under the first name was described in detail in a police report, was directly & personally involved in the matters at issue, pleaded the 5th when questioned on the subject, and was never charged. All of this is pretty well sourced, contemporaneously and today, and again other than possible issues of weight, am not sure what the BLP problem is. Tokyogirl79 offered helpful observations but I've identified several more sources since. Further thoughts from Tokyogirl or others? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more sources now, which is helpful, but this is still just an allegation and the coverage still isn't heavy enough to really warrant it being added. Like others have said, it's a legal issue because ultimately we're posting about an allegation that has yet to be proven in court and that Marcinko has never been officially charged with. Even then the wording in these articles says that this was all something that potentially happened, meaning that it could also potentially be that Marcinko had nothing to do with any of the allegations. Since no charges were brought, they apparently could never prove anything in order to make it stick, very few papers are even picking up on this story, and that the ones that do are very delicately tapdancing about naming Marcinko or the other woman, I think that the allegations should be left out of the article. If we get more coverage and Marcinko is officially taken to court then it could be added, but not before then. If we were to look at it as far as long term coverage goes, the coverage as a whole is fairly weak and isn't really enough to show that in the long run that this is ultimately worth adding to her article. At most we can say that she worked for Epstein but we can't say that people are claiming that she helped him solicit underage girls. The potential legal issues of adding unverified claims that have yet to receive any large amount of coverage is just too big to take a chance with. We're not really like a newspaper in that we have to have the most up to date claims and allegations- we can wait and see if this gets more coverage in the long run. Jumping to add it too quickly could get us slapped with a lawsuit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The story has a few twists and turns (the original events, the third party plea agreement in 2007 that specifically exempted her from prosecution as part of the bargain (WFLX TV report, 2009, still another source); and her subsequent testimony in a separate civil suit in 2010 where she pleaded the 5th) which frustrate brief summary anyhow. Also, while "assistant" does not really capture the relationship, see sources above, in the interest of caution and moving on, we may as well just leave it as is. Thanks for your insights. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it might be a good idea to do a semi protect here, as it has had 1 IPv4 and 3 IPv6 vandal's over the last two weeks. The comments have been extremely disparaging. talk→ WPPilot  04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is under attack now from a new user that has created an account for the sole function of posting derogatory comments. JohninDC has been reverting it, but the page should be locked down to verified editors for now. talk→ WPPilot  06:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too concerned. It's only every couple of days, easily enough reverted. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism on Biography of Living Person (Polaroid Kiss Music Band)

    Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @ArtemisOfMars: (AOM) & @InstantSnapFeedback: (ISF-who appears to be the party AOM is complaining about).
    •It appears that you are both edit warring. The proper first venue for wp:content disputes like this are the article talkpage i.e. Talk:Polaroid Kiss.
    • You are both apparently, new editors, and I wp:Assume good faith, but it seems rather odd that a new account (ArtemisOfMars) came to this notice board so early in their editing career. (sixth edit) And to wp:AIV on their seventh edit [1] Odd also that the account was created 3 July 2012 [2] but didn't edit until 11 January 2015. [3]
    • Artemis, who is the "we" you keep referring to? What do you mean by "Our page ..."? (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) and WP:Ownership)
    Nb. I have welcomed both editors and left a warning template about edit warring on their talkpages.--220 of Borg 07:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borg Thanks for your reply and for your advice on my talkpage.
    I created my account a long time ago but never really use it. I started to contribute a few days ago on Polaroid Kiss page. "We" and "Our page" refer to all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning. As we are a community, I thought it was normal to use the plural form.
    @InstantSnapFeedback: did edit a very important part of the biography by deleting Steve Hewitt, one of the members of the band. This edit was done several times and with no intention to even check if this was the truth. I have contacted Steve Hewitt himself and he confirmed that he is a current member of the band and did contribute to their last album. Deleting him from this biography is wrong, that's why @InstantSnapFeedback:, who never contacted anyone, has to stop editing the Polaroid Kiss page. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information is encyclopaedic, and reliably sourced then 'ISF' should not be removing it. If the account is yours alone, I would write in the singular "I". "We" tends to be used by accounts that are set up by companies or similar to promote themselves. The fact that you were able to contact Hewitt suggests that you may have a close connection to the band, which is OK so long as you maintain a wp: Neutral point of view (NPOV) in your edits to that page, if you do have some connection to them.
    Note that the three-revert rule does not apply if you are reverting wp:vandalism, but a content dispute is another thing again. Also remember that any editor is free to make constructive edits to the page, or challenge and remove un-sourced content. 220 of Borg 15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borg "ISF" did some edit once again without checking anything. They claim that I am Brandun Reed, which is wrong. Is there a way to prove it and show them that I cannot be Brandun Reed? I know that my IP address can be used but how can I do that? The information about Steve Hewitt is official, Hewitt is a member of the band for years now. There's a new album, 'Youth', which is going to be released on 20 March 2015, and he contributed to it by playing the drums. I can contact him yes, but my point of view is neutral as what I put in the biography is the reality. My only goal is to protect he band from vandalism.
    The edit war started again today. "ISF" edited once again "Hewitt" and "Dublin". Hewitt is of course a member of the band and Brandun Reed is a resident of Dublin. He is Irish, which should not be an issue, unless some people don't like Irish people. This story about a supposed "obsessesion with U2" is extremely harmful to the band and its reputation. What I believe is that this "ISF" person is a former member of the band who tries to compromise the band and Brandun Reed just before the release of their album. "ISF" has started to vandalize Steve Hewitt by removing some information. I undid what was edited because this is just a way to continue the edit war. That's why it is very important that this user "ISF" is blocked. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    exclamation mark  AOM, please note I have added indenting to your comments per wp:indent by adding one or more 'colons' or : at the start of the line. --220 of Borg 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I am getting a bit fed up with this issue, plus the fact it past 3:30 AM, where I am! If you think they are 'vandalising' the page, try wp:AIV (though I think you did and the issue was rejected or WP:Requests for page protection (wp:RFPP) . --220 of Borg 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say it's very annoying to always keep an eye on the pages in order to prevent any vandalism and make changes all the time. I spend hours on this every day. I made a request on wp:AIV and yes this was rejected. I will try WP:Requests for page protection and hope they will accept my request. Thanks for your help! ArtemisOfMars (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AOM, I have feeling that it may be rejected again as this appears to be a content dispute. I have asked InstantSnapFeedback (talk · contribs) to come here to discuss rather than just reverting. I have also asked if anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians can help.[4] --220 of Borg 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your help in resolving this issue. I requested a page protection and I hope I'll have a positive answer. It's not only a content dispute. Constantly removing the name of a musician on a band's page can be harmful for this musician. It's just as if what he did for the band was erased too and the band not acknowledging his contribution, which is rude.ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been watching this little micro-drama for several days and I think both editors or all three depending on the truth of the sockpuppet allegations, should be restricted to the talk page of this article. ArtemisOfMars and Drameu, whose editing I can not tell apart on this issue, clearly seem to have a COI here. InstantSnapFeedback may or may not have a COI but they have made the article a BATTLEGROUND.

    I scoured the web for any reference to Steve Hewitt being a member of the band Polaroid Kiss. The only article is the one the OP referrs to written in 2010 where he says he is colaborating on a project by that name. The original insertion of Polaroid Kiss, as far as I can tell was in 2011 in his discography where he is credited as a Collaborator. I have been unable to find any credits for other alblums by this band. If it were a major part of his life I would expect to see something more than a comment in the middle of an interview from over four years ago.

    I would hope that InstantSnapFeedback will come here to comment. I would also think that it would be a good idea to see what is going on at Steve Hewitt. If there is nothing here to show him as a member of the band then it is certainly UNDUE to mention it in the lead of his biography. (I tried to use Wikiblame to see who first put Polaroid Kiss in the lead but could not get anything usable). RSN might be a good place to get opinions on whether the cited source is good enough for the claim he is a member of the band. JBH (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JBH What I don't understand is why InstantSnapFeedback is only editing the name of Steve Hewitt (For your information, his name appears on the band official SoundCloud [1]), what about Perry Bamonte or Kevin Drake who were members of famous bands too? After all there are no interviews given by them for a few years (this one is from 2011 and about Kent (band) and Perry and Steve are referred as members of The Cure and Placebo [2]), which is not that surprising. Musicians are not that fond of journalists and as they were working on several projects they were not available for promoting a band who was recording a new album. Promotion only starts a few weeks before the release of an album. That's marketing. On 4 January 2015, ISF stated that about Hanin Elias "Hanin Elias is not currently involved with Polaroid Kiss". Hanin is the lead vocalist on "It All Makes Sense", the eleventh song of the new album of the band. So ISF was very wrong, which should give you a short view on what he is trying to do: harm the band and get his revenge on the members of the band because he did not take part to the new album and lose money. This is just a COI and a quick look at what this user wrote on my Talk Page will give you some good information about his motivation and, from what I see, this person knows Brandun Reed personally. The battle has started on Facebook and continues on Wikipedia. It's nothing more than a defamation campaign. I would like to suggest you to check this person's Facebook page but I cannot give names here so if there's a way to communicate a link to you privately, I'll do it. About interviews, many artists do communicate on Facebook now, it's easier, faster and the information is shared very quickly. But from what JBH said, a Facebook link is not a reliable source. So how can I show you that Steve Hewitt is actually a band member and is the drummer of Polaroid Kiss? I know that they are going to promote their new album Youth shortly, so new interviews are going to be put online. I'm not involved in this band, so there's no COI on my side. And I'm not Drameu. I don't know this user. I think that our IP addresses may appear somewhere on our profiles, so this could be easy to check them and see that we are not the same person. I really hope this "battle" will stop quickly. It's very annoying. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies to both @Borg and @JBH for wasting your time here, and also 'outing', which I was unaware is forbidden.

    However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @InstantSnapFeedback I'm not Polaroid Kiss related, I'm not a band member, nor the founder of the band. I'm not a musician. I sing under my shower and when driving my car, not on stage. How can you be so sure of what you say without even checking with the people concerned? That's incomprehensible to me. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    *Further to my previous comment, regarding @ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.

    Further to what has been claimed by @ArtemisofMars, Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23.

    Barnaby Miln

    Barnaby Miln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm trying to avoid an edit war on Barnaby Miln. User:Barnabymiln has been repeatedly removing a sentence about a conviction cited to two reliable national British newspapers saying it is "false information". I didn't write the original sentence but changed it to better reflect the references. He (presumably - wasn't logged in) brought up the issue on my talk page earlier. Haminoon (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Only one of the references actually supports the specific assertion at all. The Guardian one merely states that he "had served a short prison sentence". And the Independent piece is actually about something else, only mentioning Miln in passing. I'd be wary of using it as the sole source for such an assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but considering its the very reliable Independent, that doesn't mean it should be removed either. I would expect the conviction was dealt with by newspapers heavily at the time but I don't know how to find those references. Haminoon (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, per WP:BLP policy, it probably does. An article about gay clergymen in the 'Life and style' section of the Independent is questionable as the sole source for a matter of such significance. And incidentally, it doesn't say that Miln had any connection with the old people's home. If better sources exist, they need to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a few links, although not related to the conviction. The Barnaby Miln page continues to need better sources to avoid more disputes. Thelinkfinder (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation)

    First paragraph lists 'assassin' among careers. Seems to be subject of repeated edits to add & delete. Claim is made by subject's ex, who's embroiled in a legal battle; no independent confirmation of claim is found.

    I noticed this when looking-up subject after reading a news story. [3]

    I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia, but took a look at the edit history & it shows 'assassin' having been repeatedly added & removed from the page. Wonder if it perhaps needs a notation of the controversy & to be locked for a while.

    Thanks for all you do. Best regards.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinaLovesInfo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://soundcloud.com/polaroidkissofficial
    2. ^ http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=47131_0_2_0_C
    3. ^ http://www.komonews.com/news/national/NASCAR-driver-accused-of-abuse-says-ex-is-trained-assassin-288463261.html
    • On a side note there does seem to be somewhat of an issue of notabilty here: I don't entirely see so far where she's notable outside of her relationship. Of course I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but I figured that I would state that the article does have issues with sourcing as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NB on the principle that disambiguating titles should be as simple and general as possible, I have moved the article to Patricia Driscoll (business executive).--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lydia Cornell

    Lydia Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    We could use some eyes on this article. 108.252.17.151, states "YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS: I HAVE A STALKER THAT THREATENED MY LIFE AND FOUND MY HOME BASED ON BIRTHDATE. YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO WORK. REMOVE BIRTHDATES OFF IMDB AND WIKIPEDIA"[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the date of birth is unsourced and a brief search for reliable sources turned up empty, and given the subject's complaint above, I've removed the DOB from the article.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left a message on their talk page about this. The first thing is that they'd have to verify that they are who they say they are. From there I figure that we can decide if the DOB would be something that would do harm to her as far as stalking and such goes. As far as work goes... that's sort of something that we can't help. I know that there have been people who have complained that having their DOB visible keeps them from getting jobs, but I don't know if that's what she meant by that and/or if that would be a good reason to remove it. I've also let them know that we cannot remove the information from IMDb, as that's a different website. On a side note, can people really track you down using your DOB? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is sourced. See the talk page. If we need to clarify the sources, let's do so.
    Her birth date has been discussed in detail on the article talk page.
    She and her publicists have tried to obscure and confuse her birth year, repeatedly publishing erroneous dates.
    Wikipedia is not censored. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and made the sources a bit clearer. To summarize, we have no sources contesting that she was born 23 July, we have multiple secondary sources stating that she was born Lydia Korniloff in El Paso Texas, her birth record is available and confirms 23 July 1953, we have multiple secondary sources confirming she was 9 in 1963 when she won the "Little Miss Cotton" contest. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Lydia_Cornell --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you provided here[7] is a primary source and doesn't even mention Lydia Cornell or her birthdate. Therefore, I've removed the unsourced WP:BLP violation. Please don't edit-war to include WP:BLP violations into an article. Can we please get more editors to take a look? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that primary sources are not acceptable for information about a living person, and have removed the unlinked reference to "El Paso County birth records." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I pointed out that we have multiple secondary sources confirming her birth year. The primary source is just a convenience for tying everything together except for her name change. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the stalker already found her address through her birthdate (however that works), what good would removing it now do? It wouldn't make the stalker suddenly forget her. It's unfortunate that she has or had one, but blaming the birthdate is a bit much. And it doesn't stand to reason that having a stalker makes someone more or less likely to ever have another. As long as we use decent sources, I think it's standard biographical stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, but we don't have decent sources for it — we have someone who purports to have seen "her birth record," which is a patent violation of BLPPRIMARY. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't go deeper than this section, and it seemed "birth record is available" meant online. Even if not, combined with the secondaries and the apparent subject's confirmation that the date is correct, I think we can be sure enough to know we're not misusing the primary. Just using it, with caution. Seems kosher by that guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    The fact that someone is apparently requesting that their birthdate be removed is not justification for saying "well they confirmed it, so we can use it." That's wholly backwards. If it's not widely available in reliable secondary sources, there's no reason for us to use it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it augments the secondaries about "who" and "where", to give a reader basic biography. Vitals are vital. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    And to be clear, I don't think that someone wanting it gone is proof. Just when they think that the stalker got the right address from it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

    I've once again tried to properly source her birth date. The primary source of the birth record ties together the undisputed day of birth and birth name with the disputed year of birth. I've added one of the secondary sources that verify she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the name change. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the day of birth. We have more sources verifying she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963, but one should suffice. I hope editors agree that this is proper use of a primary source that verifies information already available in secondary sources per BLPPRIMARY. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What you have just done is literally the definition of WP:SYNTH — connecting a wide range of different information from different sources to create a novel conclusion that is not found in any reliable secondary source. Original synthesis is absolutely prohibited on Wikipedia so no, that is not a proper use of a primary source, and I have removed it. You appear to not like the fact that you can't find a reliable source for a particular piece of information, but that doesn't then allow you to piece together that information as an original synthesis. Either her birthdate is directly stated in a reliable secondary source, or we should leave it out. We are not investigative journalists, we are encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:FOC
    I hope that you are aware this has all been discussed before, and that I took your exact position until many new sources were made available. You'll note that InedibleHulk addressed these concerns above as well.
    As those discussions pointed out, the sources are appropriate and there is no SYN vio per WP:CALC.
    So what are you actually disputing? Anything other than her birth year? Any of the sources beyond the birth record? Just the application of BLPPRIMARY and CALC then? --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary source of the birth record is categorically not acceptable for anything, as per BLPPRIMARY — digging through county public records is investigative journalism, not encyclopedia editing. The absence of any reliable secondary source which explicitly lists the biographical subject's date of birth is controlling here, particularly given the subject's apparent expressed wishes. Information about living people which is not published in reliable secondary sources does not belong in Wikipedia, and if you have to piece some particular piece of information together from your synthesis of what you think newspaper clippings and public records from 50 years ago mean, that piece of information does not belong in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPPRIMARY states, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." So the disagreement is about the applicability
    Please address WP:CALC. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And you read right past the section which says subject to the restrictions of... no original research Quite. The primary-source material hasn't been discussed by any reliable secondary sources — or we wouldn't be having this discussion. WP:CALC is irrelevant because the primary source is not usable, as there is no secondary source for it to augment. I have to ask why you are so bound and determined to include a trivial piece of information that you can't reliably source against the apparent expressed wishes of the article subject. In matters relating to living people, intent absolutely matters, we err on the side of excluding disputed and poorly-sourced information, we edit with sensitivity toward article subjects and this incredibly minor bit of data about a relatively obscure actress seems like not at all the hill you should be choosing to die on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We've multiple sources that give her age. Those sources from multiple EL Paso news articles, following WP:CALC to simply subtract her age from the year, verify she was born in 1953. Are you disputing all these sources, or just the application of WP:CALC? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take this really slow: You don't have a reliable source which says Lydia Cornell's name and date of birth. Otherwise, you'd have linked it here. What you have is an original synthesis of multiple sources and a public record which purportedly supports this original synthesis. Absent a reliable secondary source which directly states Lydia Cornell's date of birth, the use of a primary source to support such a claim is categorically prohibited, as there is nothing for it to augment. Your argument is built of circles atop circles which obscure the underlying fact that you don't actually have a reliable secondary source for the information you want to include. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're thinking of her birthdate as a separate thing from her birthplace and birthname, I think. The entire subject is her birth. Secondaries give the "who" and "where" aspects, and the primary augments that with a "when". These guidelines are to prevent editors from going down a path that could reach a false claim, without precaution. Here, we're starting at the fact (or very persuasive claim) and working backwards. The end justifies the means. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Well, yes. Her birthdate is a separate piece of information from her birthplace and her birthname and no, the end does not justify the means. We don't use such logic when it comes to non-public personal information about a living person. If you have to dig in public records for something, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you split every event into such fine pieces, you get a situation where the only thing a primary source on any tidbit can add to is a secondary with the exact same tidbit. In that case, we'd never need the extra primary, and that part of the guideline would be meaningless. Augmentation is not duplication. Not by my reading, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
    There is no reliable secondary source for the information that is being proposed for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The primary should augment what is there. No woman was ever turned down for breast augmentation because hers weren't big enough. Same overall woman, pre and post-op. Same birth here, with a little more for readers to look at. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)What sources? The only source that you provided so far neither mentioned Lydia Cornell or her birthdate. Please keep in mind that WP:NEWBLPBAN applies to all biographical information. If you continue to edit-war to include WP:BLP violations, you risk getting sanctioned. Aren't you aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)NorthBySouthBaranof is repeating what I've done at least twice now. At least we're coming from the same perspective. [8] [9]
    You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953. We do have reliable and secondary sources verifying her birth name, her age, and the day of her birth. The only thing in dispute is the year of her birth. Hence my questions on the application of WP:CALC.
    Are we on the same page now? --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you understand that we're not going to include her complete date of birth without a reliable secondary source to support that piece of information, then yes, we're on the same page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it is your position. My concern is whether of not your position is based upon an understanding of our current policies or not, hence my repeated questions about the application of WP:CALC.
    So, the only thing apparently in dispute is the year of her birth. Is subtracting her age from a publication date a valid application of WP:CALC or not? --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...no. We're still at square one. You have not provided a single source which states her birthday, nor have you addressed the original complaint which started this thread. AQFK (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote, "We do have reliable and secondary sources verifying her birth name, her age, and the day of her birth." Are you saying that we don't have such sources? Have you looked at the talk page discussion? --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've looked at them. None of the reliable secondary sources you cite provides her date of birth, and ultimately the only way you have a date of birth for "Lydia Korniloff" is a public record search in primary sources. As there is no reliable secondary source for the primary source to augment, the primary source is unusable. Absent the primary source, you don't have a date of birth for "Lydia Korniloff," so it doesn't matter how well you can connect the name change to Lydia Cornell. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are disputing the day of birth, of which all sources agree, including Cornell herself? --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We're going around in circles, so I'll just ask again, do you have a reliable secondary source which explicitly states Lydia Cornell's date of birth? If not, the information stays out of her biography. There are plenty of sites other than Wikipedia where a person can do investigative journalism and/or dig up dirt and/or "expose" some non-public bit of information about a person by piecing together 25 different sources and speculating about which one means which. Once that information is published in a reliable secondary source, it can be included in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I already answered that question, "You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953." But I think this new ref will resolve this: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/entertainment/2014/07/22/celebrity-birthdays-july/13005405/ --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
    Hey, what do you know, a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any sketchy raccoons in Cornell's trash are unanimously the Associated Press' problem. Now let's all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, January 16, 2015 (UTC
    Given the trivial coverage provided by this source[10], not even a full sentence, and the fact that the unsourced Wikipedia coverage[11] (at least April 2, 2006) pre-dates the newly cited source (July 22, 2014) by eight(!) years, this may be a case of WP:CIRCULAR. The lack of collaborating sources is troubling. Given the lack of reliable sources and the subject's apparent request that this information be private, I am removing the potential WP:BLP violation.
    I remind all editors that BLP should be interpreted liberally, and with respect to the subject's privacy. Edit-warring to include potential BLP violations is grounds for sanctions. Editors should seek consensus before restoring contentious BLP information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but no one agrees with you. The date has been verified by multiple, reliable primary and secondary sources.
    Sorry for forgetting you were here when I said "unanimously". Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
    If you want to dispute the sources, take them RSN. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the new editor claiming to be the subject of the article is in fact who they say they are. A different IP editor added information earlier that seems credible. The new IP is likely a troll. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's from LA. She's from LA. Who else could it be? Seriously, though, you never know who's who online. But if we disqualify her claim of accuracy on that basis, we can't forget to disqualify the BLP concern. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

    Giannis Kazoukas

    Giannis Kazoukas (Greek:Γιαννης Καζουκας),born in 21 April 1991 is a Greek footballer who plays as a Forward.212.233.45.102 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place request an article or to post draft text. If you believe that this guy meets the WP:FOOTIE guidelines, please create a draft article per the process at WP:AFC.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Bresch

    I am affiliated with the article-subject. Between Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy and Heather Bresch#Controversy, currently most of Wikipedia's content about her is regarding this controversy. Rather than using Summary Style on her page, the Controversy section is about half the length of the full, dedicated article. I have offered a draft on the Talk page and a discussion has been started with the original author, user:Nomoskedasticity. More eyes and participants are welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 17:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Bresch should focus on her, so the section on the MBA controversy should be far shorter, summarizing the other article and focus on her part in it, such as including that she apparently lied about earning the degree. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we even need two articles? The "controversy" stuff could easily be condensed and merged into the main article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable on its own, there's very little of the controversy that is about her, the details about the controversy directly concerning her (that she stated she finished her MBA when she had not) is not currently mentioned as it should. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've modified my draft to align with user:Ronz's feedback for now with a summary of the controversy in the chronology (or should it be pulled out into its own section?). Giving it a fresh read, the content is mostly focused on university staff and how they reacted to inquiries about Bresch's degree status, as oppose to Bresch's actions. It would be ideal however if a disinterested editor took a quick stab at summarizing the controversy in whatever manner they find appropriate. Also, any feedback on the rest of the draft article that would build out the more routine aspects of the page is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When date of birth is uncertain

    What is the correct course when a date of birth is reported differently by different sources? Should the different dates be included, with relevant references, or should the date be omitted completely? I had originally opted for the former at Violet Brown, but in view of the persistent intervention of proponents of the Gerontology Research Group I'm beginning to wonder if the latter is not the better solution. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone may promptly disagree with me, but my suggestion would be to just email the subject of the article and ask them. Blatant original research of course, but people do tend to reliably report their own birthdate more accurately than published sources. Alternatively, a primary source like official birth records may also be more trustworthy in this case. A date of birth does not require secondary sources to interpret the data. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is a common one, especially for people in the entertainment industry or born in countries where verification of birth records is difficult. Follow BLPPRIMARY, which states we do not use primary sources alone for such info. When secondary sources give contradictory dates, find consensus on which sources are reliable. If the reliable sources disagree, then leave the information out. Examples include Rebecca De Mornay (birth date included after reliable secondary sources were found), Veena Malik (birth date not included because no sources have yet been found that are deemed reliable), and Lydia_Cornell (currently under discussion above: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lydia_Cornell). --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have reliable sources that have differing dates, we can "sources have reported the birth date as X (rsA, rsB) and Y(rsC, rsD). or if it is a matter that some sources say Aug 1, 1970 and other say June 1, 1970, we just report the year. Or if the dates are within a year or two, "was born circa MIDWAYYEAR (note that the sources have X {source} and Y {source}) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The incredibly lame Doris Day DOB edit war lasted months! Choor monster (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies. The question is not answered (though I do like the idea of emailing a 114-year-old woman in rural Jamaica to ask her when her birthday is - if I had her email address I'd do it, but of course I don't). The crux of the problem is that if the date of birth is removed, there's essentially no article - she's only notable for being old. Anyway, more eyes would be welcome; there seems to be some sort of pressure-group promoting this Gerontology Research Group in Wikipedia, and I'm allergic to pressure groups. I'm going to ask about the reliability of that source at WP:RSN. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that contrary to CorporateM's advice, emailing the subject wouldn't solve the problem anyway - we need a published source for verification, not private correspondence which cannot be independently verified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    user:AndyTheGrump is correct of course. Somewhere deep in my email archives is a note from Jeremy Stoppelman's handler with what is probably his correct birthdate. Instead I knowingly published most likely false information about a BLP in order to stick with published sources. It's all rather silly of course. But back to the matter at hand. If the article-subject is primarily famous for being old, but there is not an abundance of high quality source material regarding their age, these two things seem contradictory to me. If they are indeed notable for something, than there is source material for it, and if there is not source material, they are in fact not notable. I see on List of the verified oldest people that she is ranked 40 and we would almost never create an article about a company with the 40th largest market share in an industry or a person that was famous for being 40th place in the olympics. It sounds like AfD might be appropriate. The pertinent information is probably already included on the List page. CorporateM (Talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Raj Chowdhury, yet again

    Views requested at Talk:Raj Chowdhury on Images. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Severin

    The following is not biography it is judgment.

    (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.238.42 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the offending sentence from both the article and here as it was clearly an opinion and it was sourced to Wikipedia itself. In the future please don't put disputed content on this page, rather simply link to the page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Eaglestone

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

    This article has obviously been written by its subject or somebody close to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.92.40 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Ramsey (comedian)

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

    I'm not sure what the best solution may be for this article. For right now, I am asking for more watchful eyes on the Chris Ramsey (comedian) page. There is an anonymous IP editor who returns each day to add unsourced content to this WP:BLP. Perhaps it may need temporary semi-protection, or a short block to the IP in question, but unfortunately they are not responding to comments left on their talk page. I'm looking for feedback on how best to proceed with this one. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll request semi-protection. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Satin

    Could someone revdel [12]? NE Ent 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that one went too far. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RAAI LAXMI

    Currently we are facing huge issue in leading India Actress Page "raai laxmi" ; Her Date of birth is 5th May 1989 we have submitted lot of proofs and links , but some admin is chaging the date of birth very offen to different DOB which degrades the actress reputation we need support on the same to fix the error and make the DOB protected from further editing

    Page Link :- Raai Laxmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegacelebs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just glancing over before going to bed, it really looks like the date of birth and age entries should just be left blank until a better source is found. Clickbait websites such as "celebfacts," and random links to google searches, and so on are not reliable per our guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cornelius Sim

    Cornelius Sim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I would like to report that this article contains utterly unsubstantiated claims made by the writer about the person in question, and that these claims are not only subjectively accusatory but also libelious in nature. I am not well-aquainted with the mechanism of Wikipedia and how to edit postings, so I am reporting it here. Kindly remove this article upon receipt of this notice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.131.172 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed, here, un-encyclopaedic and poorly/un sourced content added by 202.160.34.4 (talk · contribs). . --220 of Borg 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Autumn Jackson (the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby's illegitimate daughter)

    More eyes are needed on the Autumn Jackson BLP. Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this. The Autumn Jackson BLP is apparently new. It was created after the recent Bill Cosby scandal broke, and it seems to be missing a lot of relevant factual information. For example, the current version fails to mention that Autumn Jackson’s extortion conviction against Cosby was at one point overturned [13] .I think it may have been reinstated. Could someone more knowledgeable regarding all the facts of the case, or else someone with time and inclination to properly research the relevant facts of Autumn Jackson’s case, please take a look at this BLP. This BLP probably gets lots of hits right now because Autumn Jackson’s name keeps resurfacing in the news in light of all that is currently going on with Bill Cosby and it seems to need significant work.

    Also of concern is it appears to have neutrality concerns. For example, it opens with a description of Jackson as an “American criminal” instead of more neutral "American woman convicted of extortion" Additionally, the current version is referenced by questionable sources such as website: “Rhymes with snitch, news from the bathroom wall” [14] which is being used to say Jackson was charged with welfare fraud in 2007, but the current article doesn’t tell readers if she was actually convicted of welfare fraud or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    See [15] "In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her. The woman, Autumn ..." seems to indicate the conviction was, indeed, reinstated - and by the same court. [16] AP: "Prosecutors said Monday they are seeking the extradition of two women, one of whom was convicted a decade ago of trying to extort Bill Cosby, on unrelated charges of grand theft and perjury in a welfare fraud case. " indicating an arrest for welfare fraud. No later AP story on that case it appears. Most likely plea bargained in some way, I suppose. Collect (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect, that's interesting but It seems there's still so many unanswered questions. Was she returned to prison? According to that source "Mr. Baum said Ms. Jackson would surrender to prison authorities, but he added that he would then seek her release on bail. He said he was considering seeking a review by the full Federal appeals court" Did they appeal again? It seems the current version of article does not adequately address a lot of the relevant details of this case and was hoping readers of this noticeboard could fill in the missing info. Also, if Jackson was not convicted of the 2007 welfare fraud accusation, it seems this potentially should be removed in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME which states, "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". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely she went back to prison for the extortion. Multiple sources. And we have no record of fraud charges being dismissed -- odds are very high that a plea bargain ensued. As to calling her "relatively unknown" I fear that horse left the barn a few years ago (and she is notable enough for her own BLP). [17] shows one reason why she was likely convicted - she refused to take any DNA test. The court reinstated her sentence - no reason to doubt that it was reinstated. And by the time any court would or could hear another appeal, the 26 months would be long over. I did find multiple sources for her being charged with welfare fraud though, and held on $110,000 bail. A tad more significant than a simple minor arrest. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I've read through the sources currently used in BLP, and also the one you linked above, and none of them specify Jackson was returned to prison. This source currently used in BLP suggests public sympathy had shifted toward Jackson by 1999, at a point when she had not yet been returned to prison, so I'm curious to know what eventually happened with her case: AUTUMN JACKSON has two living, breathing, toddling reasons why she desperately does not want to return to prison. The woman who her entire life has believed that actor Bill Cosby is her natural father does not want her twin sons — born while Autumn was behind bars — to grow up without a parent, like she did. “It felt like a kick to the stomach,” Autumn told me yesterday about an appeals court’s ruling that she go back to jail....Now Autumn and her family are awaiting word on when she might have to finish the last seven months of her sentence....“This is devastating. My family has already gone through this, over and over and over. “If I go back in prison, my boys are not going to trust me going anywhere. Even now, when I go out of the room, they have fits....Autumn said of Cosby. “And my advice to anyone contemplating something like I did is: Stop and think what’s important in life before jeopardizing what you have.” [18]. This source from '99 ends with "Hasn’t she been punished enough?". I did find this source regarding the blood test refusal saying the test was indeed refused by her and by her mother because at that point they deemed the results would not help her appeals in any way [19].Regarding the welfare fraud accusation with conviction status unknown, I don't see how Jackson being notable enough for a BLP makes her ineligible for the above mentioned clause from WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly that is a policy applied to people notable enough for a BLP. In my estimation, Jackson seems comparably less notable, as far as BLP subjects go, considering the things she is notable for happened back in the 90's, and she only got a BLP a few weeks ago because the extremely notable individual here, Bill Cosby, is back in the news regarding all this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel she is "not notable" then AfD is the proper recourse. Propose it. At this point, she appears very notable indeed. And since she was the one who sought the notability, it is hard for me to say she was only accidentally notable. And having a $110,000 bail set on the fraud charge is substantially more than a traffic ticket. [20] just came out - including tarot readings from the author. It does state that Autumn was careless about writing bad checks, though. WRT being convicted of extortion - the conviction remains in any event. Much of the remaining 7 months (out of 26) was likely reduced - but it appears she did have to report to the jail to be processed after the conviction was upheld. Her own aunt paints a very disturbing picture, though. Collect (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never suggested Autumn Jackson is not notable enough for a BLP. I have said that the welfare fraud accusations against Autumn Jackson seem to be covered by WP:BLPCRIME, if we cannot find a source which says she was convicted of welfare fraud. This is the specific part of the WP:BLPCRIME policy I'm referring to: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. 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 do think Autumn Jackson qualifies as "relatively unknown". As far as BLP subjects go, she seems to be minimally known considering she is notable for something that happened approx. 20 years ago, but she only got a BLP a few weeks ago, likely due to increased attention on her old case as a result of Bill Cosby being back in the news regarding sexual abuse allegations. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Sly

    There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the offending text as unsourced, here. It has been removed previously for the same reason and re-added again by IP editors to this and related pages. Note that you were able to remove this yourself. Additionally, until I restored an earlier version there was no source at all re Tony Slys death! --220 of Borg 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Ayers

    The image of 'Randy Ayers' in 2008 is NOT a picture of Randy Ayers!

    Incorrect Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg/220px-Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.5.223 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolfe D. Mandel

    I came across this Rolfe D. Mandel article in the new pages feed. A significant portion of the article is sourced from a reference described as: "Personal Contact"; as primary as a primary source can be. With one exception the citations using this reference appear to be for factual information and not analysis or contentious material. I am curious to know how such situations are handled. Vrac (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=643055724"