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.

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article

Someone in the talk page said that such information must be either reworded, additionally referenced, or deleted. I wonder if that's the case. --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles can't be used as sources without showing that other newspaper articles reported on the newspaper article? That's a level of recursion that I haven't encountered before. The source in question is one of Curacao's major newspapers reporting the contents of interviews with people that are certainly notable with regard to the case: Julia Renfro, who assisted Natalee's mother during the early days of her search, and Gerald Dompig, who headed the investigation into Natalee's disappearance. The information itself isn't particularly new or controversial, and the documentary itself received widespread coverage. This was one of the tamer sources available, considering it was in competition with things like this. —Kww(talk) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article is drawing on a single source to present a contentious view, and exhaustively detail accusations about living people. "According to interviews done in preparation for the film,". That is not proper attribution.

Re this, the source is about Sloot. it alleges he was in the business of recruiting prostitutes. Thanks for that, making very clear what the article is getting at in the lede: "he said that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery". So the article has contained an innuendo that she was the sort of girl who could be recruited to work as a prostitute. And this was while she fell under BLP guidelines. (Natalee Holloway was only legally declared dead in 2012). Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a way to twist things. Slavery has become a voluntary state that reflects on the moral character of the slave? The allegations were made multiple times by multiple parties during the course of the investigation, and JvdS even confessed to it and later recanted. BLP policies do not require that we present a Disneyfied version of events.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a helpful link in the lede to sexual slavery, so there is no doubt what was, and is, being insinuated about the victimised teenager's character was that she was the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute. And she was officially a living person for the years that has been in the article. Highly inappropriate, and still is.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No such insinuation is being made, nor can it reasonably be read that anyone is stating that Natalee was "the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute." That's the problem we keep having in these discussions: you are objecting to an article that doesn't exist and insisting on changes to the one that actually does exist as a result.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my favorite discussion: identity vs. behavior (or activity). Prostitute vs. prostitution. Which is better? Fortunately, I care about speedily resolving this issue, and I sense that the whole debate is making the issue longer (and more difficult) to resolve. I guess I have no opinion on this, so it needs another opinion of someone besides yours. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the issue at all: the issue is that the source is stating that JvdS stands accused of doing bad things to Natalee, the article reflects that those accusations exist (and that he even confessed to it at one point), and the inclusion of that material is now being twisted into stating that Natalee is being accused of being a bad person. That's unreasonable. This discussion is also in reference to a source that the article doesn't use, but was one that I provided as an example of how we had used discretion in selecting sources to use less sensational ones.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article twice (one in the lede ) detailed the story about the victim being trafficked into prostitution as the lede's link made clear. I am scared to guess what motivated those edits, but there is no doubt it was a BLP violation for years while she was presumed alive (until 2012). It was a story told by Sloot (who the Aruban police chief publicly described as a "sociopath" in 2008) and should never have been in the article WP:AVOIDVICTIM._Overagainst (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that scary motivation was to neutrally describe the aftermath of the disappearance? There were three leading theories immediately after the disappearance: homicide, kidnapping, and runaway. Runaway stopped being seriously discussed very quickly, as no one could find a trace of any motivation to do so. Kidnapping remained a theory for years, but, when no ransom was ever demanded, people focused on this idea of her having been sold into slavery. That theory was publicized in both a documentary on Aruba and in the American press by Dr. Phil, and was the subject of a recanted confession. The topic of the investigation can't be completely discussed without mentioning it. Very few people would seriously consider discussing the theory that someone had been sold into slavery as a BLP violation against the person thought to have been forced into slavery. It's a theory that portrays Natalee as a potential victim, not in a negative light.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Look what the featured article has front and centre (here). The Aruba police chief's favoured theory of an accidental alcohol and drug overdose is buried in a long section in the middle of the article, but the attribution of sexual promiscuity, drunkenness and drug use is front and centre. So the explication of the course of the investigation is not what's going on. Material on obscure and prurient prostitution 'theories' does no work to explain or neutrally describe, functioning rather as a hook to hang negative attributions about the victim and her (living) family. Whether the motivation is a conscious attempt to humiliate and degrade the Holloways is irrelevant. WP:AVOIDVICTIM "...when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."_Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Amigoe article is not a sufficient source for itself and hence much of what is in the section. The opinion seems to be that without secondary sources being added it should not be in the article. No secondary sources have been supplied and it has been reverted back to. I think it has to be removed until better sources are provided.Overagainst (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles don't need to have separate articles written about them to be used as sources. If you think that's our standard, please point to other newspaper stories that required other stories to be written about them before anyone used them: I think you will find none. The Amigoe viewed tapes of conversations with notable people relevant to the case and reported the contents of the conversations. That's well within the remit of standard newspaper journalism. That's unsurprising, as the Amigoe is a standard newspaper. Of course it's been reverted back: every argument you have made for removal is easily refuted. You have no legitimate case for removal of the material.—Kww(talk) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You've just, for a second time, reverted to original version with the section detailing the Amigoe article's allegations about living people which is referenced to .... the Amigoe article. I'm sorry but you're confused. I did not bring this here, those who expressed an opinion did think the sourcing was insufficient for what could reasonably be seen as accusations. I don't understand how you can leave edit summaries to say no one here but me thought there was any problem with what you have reverted to without any changes. The section still has not met the criterion Free Range Frog gave above a week ago "notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage".Overagainst (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Which I promptly did with a linkage to a RNW article about the same documentary that the Amigoe reviewed interview was for. I can find you source after source for Gielen's material and the supporting tapes. The material overlaps material brought forth in other interviews. I met the challenge. Free Range Frog made an extremely inaccurate statement as well: I again ask you to indicate any other newspaper articles that you would require another newspaper article to be written about before you permitted it to be used. It's a strange standard that isn't applied anywhere.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 190 is for the statement "The documentary would air in November 2008." In any case, the Amigoe article, not any documentary is the ref for the accusations about the Holloways that the Amigoe article section contains (the section is actually called Amigoe article. No secondary source for the allegations detailed in the section has been provided. It remains predicated on a single newspaper article, while about living people,.Overagainst (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The allegations of enslavement are repeated in the Fox interview you also attempted to delete as well, as well as in the DeVries documentary and the Dr. Phil show. The allegations that Beth and Jug were prepared to evacuate their daughter in the event of a rescue are not negative in any fashion and are repeated in the Vanity Fair article. Dompig's complaints of FBI interference are repeated in multiple places. Renfro's complaints are repeated multiple places, including the Vanity Fair article. Gielen's documentary aired on a national television network and is widely covered in Dutch press. What specific allegation do you believe is predicated on a single newspaper article?—Kww(talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As anyone can see above, a story about Joran van der Sloot recruiting prostitutes was linked to by you for some strange reason. That made it very clear what the part of the lede that contained a news story about Joran van der Sloot's allegedly saying he had sold Natalee Holloway into sexual slavery was about. Just to hammer it home the article lede had a link to the palga sexual slavery where it talks about the modern form being prositution. So it was no accident that the article lede contained an odd digression which could be read as implying that Natalee Holloway was working as a prostitute. Joran van der Sloot originally said he ran Natalee Holloway back to the hotel, and then under police questioning he settled on a completely different story, that he left Natalee Holloway on the beach. The slavery story was NOT GIVEN DURING THE INVESTIGATION. Summary style requires that what should be in the lede is the most relevant details to the subject. The slavery story doesn't rate a lede mention.

As the title suggests the whole 'Amigoe article' section is predicated on a single newspaper article. And that article is the reference for statements about living people which are not being properly attributed. See here "Furthermore, according to Amigoe's report on the interviews, Aruban authorities were obstructed ". It shouldn't say 'according to interviews", it should say 'according to (who these people were)...'. If the interviewees or other informants are not named, then we should say something like 'according to the Aruban newspaper Amigoe, sources close to the Aruban investigation ....'.

There are 9 or 10 allegations about the Holloways in that one subsection, and yet the section is called Criticism of the investigation. Perhaps it's just me but the whole article is, I think, criticism of the Holloways IN COUNTERPOINT, and gives a misleading account of the Holloways' real complaint about the investigation which is NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE. "The Twittys and their supporters criticized a perceived lack of progress by Aruban police." No, that is not what Beth Holloway was complaining about. She wanted it treated as a murder investigation and she complained the police were not working on the assumption that Natalee was a murder victim. The Aruban police chief said in 2008 he thought Natalee had died accidently. The article is like a specialised news blog, it's full of news reports about the Holloways and is not written in summary style. The weight given to allegations about the Holloways through exhaustively detailing each and every criticism of them amounts to a BLP violation. This probem would disappear if all these sections with specific allegations about the Holloways were condensed into a few short paras. I don't see the problem in doing that. The more extensive the media coverage of a subject, the more it should be condensed. You can't eliminate the main contention made by one side of a controversy out of the article, but exhaustively detail each and every criticism made by those on the the other side of the controversy.Overagainst (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of that is something that can actually be worked on: if you don't feel that the Twitty's concerns about the Aruban police department are accurately represented, there's no problem with adding material that explains their complaints. I can see merit to the argument that their complaint gets lost in the text. If you propose additions like that, I will work with you on them. The problem to watch out for is to not assume that Beth's allegations are actually true. It certainly is true that Dompig has publicly stated that he believes no murder occurred and that any foul play was limited to covering up an unintentional death. It certainly is true that Beth has publicly stated that she believes her daughter was raped and murdered. It is certainly true that that mismatch is what drove this whole controversy in the beginning. What we have not got is anything to tell us whether Dompig or the Twittys were actually right, and we have to write the article on the assumption that either or neither may be true.

It's also unreasonable to attempt to minimize Beth's involvement, but her involvement should be portrayed without malice without portraying it as heroic because portraying her as a hero involves painting Dompig as a villain. She did what we all expect mothers to do in this situation: she used every resource she had to keep people searching for her daughter. Nothing in the article should portray that as mean-spirited. What happened was that the scope of her resources allowed her to have an effect well beyond what most mothers could accomplish in that situation: I certainly couldn't get any country to devote 40% of its annual police budget to any case, nor get a Governor of an American state to demand that Americans cripple the economy of a foreign country until that country did things the way I wanted them to. Her actions triggered reactions, and those reactions are a major part of this story.

I see Beth as somewhat of a tragic hero: if Beth had won, and somehow managed to produce either her daughter or conclusive evidence of what had happened to her, she'd be a hero to all. As it stands, there's one group that applauds her struggle as being noble, and another that views her as having overstepped and overreached. I do know that if I were in her position with her resources, I would have behaved similarly. I sense that you feel that same sympathy. That sympathy doesn't mean that we should eliminate all coverage of the negative effects of the behaviour.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the parents of Stephany Flores think the US media made too much fuss over the disappearance of Natalee Holloway or believe the Aruban police did all that could be expected. You should create an article about Beth's 'involvement' if it is that important, some of that stuff I have complained about above might have some relevance there. Fact is the article is not officially about that, but in practice is, mainly consisting of slant against Beth Holloway. The real loser from the current article is Aruba which comes off very badly. There is no pro Beth group or side. And I will prove it to you: no one has tried to remove the attack page Beth Holloway, or even alter it in ANY WAY. I should have listened to those with experience on this about how entrenched the slant was. I know better now. The events of 2010 have conspired to make a nonsense of the tone of the article anyway.- Overagainst (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is not now, nor has it ever been, particularly slanted against Beth. That's the fundamental problem with this discussion: you begin from a false premise and then wonder why people have difficulty reaching the same conclusions that you do. The article contains both positive and negative statements about the major parties, and focuses on the notable feature of this disappearance: the long-lasting aftermath. It strained international relations between Aruba and the United States, strained relationships within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, resulted in the Netherlands overriding Aruba's sovereignity, cost 40% of Aruba's police budget, became national news in the US (becoming its own television show on CNN for a while), was the topic of news throughout the Kingdom for years, spawned two major documentaries, was the topic of a Lifetime movie, subsequent legal action against JvdS for extortion, confessions that were made and recanted, and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact, and the article tries to cover it all in a balanced fashion. I welcome efforts to cast that involvement in a balanced light, but trying to pretend that those things didn't occur or that the Twitty's were uninvolved in it doesn't seem like the right solution.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdented on purpose. 'Nuff said! George Ho (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Feel free to replace this message, but don't remove the outdent. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Beth is mentioned 31 times. Often in an argumentative tone (" Beth Twitty has made varying statements as to whether", "Beth Twitty alleged.. Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway alleged ... However, )" Why was that SPS external link never spotted before I pointed it out? It may be that one had ever read the entire article before I did, it's long, repetitive, and achingly devoid of interest, due to the insane concentration on denigrating Beth.

"and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact"

No, Beth publicly saying Joran van der Sloot was a murderer was not responsible for him later killing Stephany Flores—only an undercover misogynist could imply otherwise._Overagainst (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Beth played a key role in the controversy surrounding the investigation. It's not surprising that she is mentioned frequently. The investigation would have come to a grinding halt soon after the disappearance without her influence. It's not Wikipedia's place to comment on whether her continued role was a good thing or a bad thing ... it's just a fact.
2. None of those examples are argumentative.
3. The article does not denigrate Beth.
4. I made no such implication, and take no responsibility for any false inferences you make. I refrain from insulting you, and would ask that you refrain from insulting me.

—Kww(talk) 23:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no mistaking what you meant. I said "I'm not sure the parents of Stephany Flores think the US media made too much fuss over the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" suggesting that if Aruban police (or Peruvian passport control) had taken what Beth Holloway said seriously, they might have prevented the murder of Ms Flores You responded with "and the discovery of the linkage between JvdS and this event was confessed motive for the murder of a second woman. That's a lot of impact, the Twittys were involved in making that impact". So you were implying that the publicity about the disappearance of Natalee (Beth's statements) drove van der Sloot to murder Flores. If that was not a BLP violation I do not know what is.-Overagainst (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. "The event" referred back solely to the disappearance. JvdS's stated motive in the murder of Flores was rage over Flores discovering the linkage between JvdS and the Holloway disappearance.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Louis Joseph Posner

Louis Joseph Posner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So this article got stubbed and then quickly A7'ed back in 2011, then recreated earlier this year with all the content that had been removed prior to stubbing (a histmerge was later conducted). The recreated article dealt entirely with the subject's protest movement in response to the 2000 and 2004 US Presidential elections, whereas at least in 2011, virtually all reliable sources out there focused on his then-recent disbarment following a conviction for promoting prostitution. I think AfD is pretty clearly the next step, but given WP:GNG is pretty clearly met by the number of sources discussing his disbarment, it seems that WP:BLP1E would be the only grounds for deleting at this point (if indeed the conviction and disbarment is the only notable event for this subject). If not, it still seems likely that the main source of notability for this subject is his conviction and disbarment, and thus WP:UNDUE suggests the article should mainly focus on those aspects... but how does this mesh with WP:BLP? Anyway, I'm hoping for some more experienced eyes to at least give this one a look. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does a lawyer getting disbarred meet our notability guidelines? Lawyers get disbarred all the time. If Posner is notable for anything, surely it is for his involvement with VoterMarch - and any significant coverage of his disbarment can only be a result of his earlier activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The conviction that led to the disbarment was substantially covered by major news sources, including the New York Times and New York Post, and industry news such as the New York Law Journal, and others. And the conviction itself was only very tangentially related to his activity with VoterMarch (which I note should probably be moved to "Voter March") insofar as it was initially alleged (in the grand jury indictment, which allegation was covered in the Times article) that he'd used Voter March to launder money from a prostitution ring operated out of his lap dance club; the charges related to that appear to have been dropped, possibly as part of the plea deal. There was also a minor incident in the wake of the case having to do with how seized monies could be used (I admit I haven't really looked into it deeply yet, but there's a reported Appellate Division case raised by the NYPD dealing with it). Anyway, long story short, I think it's pretty likely the coverage of the conviction/disbarment meets WP:GNG, or at least could be reasonably argued as such... but if you combine it with Voter March does it pass WP:BLP1E? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Material got removed

See [1]: An IP has just removed all mention of the arrest, conviction and disbarment claiming it's "potentially libelous" given a pending appeal (probably not a meritorious one, but that's neither here nor there). Can I get a third party's input here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave Potter (politician)

Dave Potter (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Seems entirely negative,and, although a politician where almsot anything is pertinent, is a relatively minor official DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The article is loaded with negative information including intricate details of settled and pending investigations into his finances. Can a completely disinterested editor give this article a severe pruning, please? I think I could do it fairly, but I do have a very remote COI, so would prefer if someone else did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. All three investigations have now been closed without any criticism of Potter. Trimmed accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

wellknown/blpcrime/charges dropped

For a WP:WELLKNOWN person charged with a crime, but later charges were dropped, where the charging and dropping of charges were well covered by newspapers etc, is there a policy about if content regarding the charges should remain in the BLP? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage identifying the article in question. Why shouldn't the rest of us evaluate the issue in context? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Zimmerman again?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity Yes zimmerman again. I didn't mention the article, since it is obviously a charged topic, and I was looking to see if there was generally accepted guidance to use as a starting point. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Frida (ABBA)

Frida Lyngstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I doubt the reliability of the information that Frida has a passion for pigeon racing and a connection with Pigeon Fanciers' Club in north of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.213.121 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Material removed as unsourced. For future reference, you can do the same for any unsourced material in any article, especially in biographies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Found a source (but not an RS) that says she is the president of the Hardwick Homing Society in Stockton (UK). No mention of her on its Web site,[2] though. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith B. Alexander

Keith B. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User added (presumed authentic) SSN, addresses and other confidential info about subject with this edit.[3]. Changes have been reverted but request permanent deletion of this version of the page. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've contacted someone from the RevDel team to revdel that out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update The information is now RevDeleted. Thanks to the RevDel team !!  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Data revdeled (thank you) Dwpaul ^Talk 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Hoyt

• Sam Hoyt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request that this article on Sam Hoyt be placed under Wikipedia protections. I am an editor who has done considerable work on the article, recently, in order to improve it, clean it up, and remove the libelous and harmful information that is repeatedly placed on it that is unsourced. Most recently, I removed a libelous quote from the page that was falsely cited with a reference that states nothing about the specific quote that was included in it. I have taken the time to do much research on this issue and this subject, and have included and sourced only factual information that is correctly sourced. I have also placed my comments and requests for protection on the article's talk page. Therefore, I would like to request that the administrator of the article please place Level 1 or Level 2 protections or semi-oprotections on the article. The article has been repeatedly edited by others to include this libelous and harmful information for what appears to be the past 8 years! The article and subject must obviously be protected, please. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Daniellagreen: Can you point to a diff that shows the disruptive material? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I've gone back and tried to locate exactly who placed some of the harmful material in the article. I located 10:07, 12 June 2013 by CutThruTheNoise, who placed an inappropriate and unsourced subheader in the article, and which was toward the top (!) of the article. I removed that. I also tried to locate the editor who included the harmful information that I edited out - that you can see at my edit: 2:59, 14 December 2013. That specific information is harmful and unsourced. It was information that was going around on a Western New York political blog (WNYBuffalo), and whose editor also made comments on the article's talk page. That blog, by the way, no longer exists - I went to its website address, and it is no longer there. There was correct and correctly sourced information placed in the article by JMyrleFuller on 15:12, 29 November 2011, but somewhere along the lines, that was removed, and the harmful information replaced it, using the sources that were included by JMyrleFuller. I have since gone in and replaced the correct information, and sourced it correctly, as Fuller did. Thanks for your consideration. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a concern about the section titled "Scandal" which is referenced to primary sources. Who called this matter a "scandal" and is it worthy of mention if the only outcome was a restriction on participating in internship programs? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher

There is a dispute about the reliability of a source used to quote Dana Rohrabacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

The video has Rohrabacher saying: "Today, radical Islam and China appear to be the main adversaries of people in the free world…." So, for the Wikipedia article to assert that Rohrabacher believes "Islam 'motivates people to murder children'" seems to be quite a distortion of what he said. He was obviously talking about "radical Islam" rather than "Islam" generally. Which is yet another indication that Think Progress is an advocacy site rather than a reliable source.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you would like to use that further source to support the notion that the subject says Islam consists of child murderers, please note that the NewsMax piece quotes Rohrabacher three times using the word "Islam" and all three times he was saying "radical Islam". Thus, he was not speaking of Islam generally, no matter how much one might wish it were true that he slimed the entire religion. He carefully avoided doing so three times in that NewsMax article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[6]

I added "radical Islam" to the same proposal. What do you think now? QuackGuru (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot better, but I'd like to also hear from the editor who was on the other side of the edit-war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only one sentence. It might be possible to expand it. I do not know where in the article it could be placed. QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a running issue in this of people on both sides looking at single statements and not looking for secondary sources which put it all together. Surely they must exist. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like ThinkProgress is the outlet that first noticed Dana's statement about murderers, because other sources cite it. I'm ok with the compromise version above. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a compromise version. Instead, it's a version that attempts to avoid a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, partisan is not the same thing as unreliable. In this case, there's actually no risk of our secondary source being mistaken, because we also have a link to the primary source.

We seem to have some sort of consensus for using the quote, but enlarging the context to include "radical" as the type of Islam. I'm fine with that. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Newsmax to that list of hyper-partisan sites that should only be used with great caution, if at all.

I note with amusement that the editor who stepped in with a new source at the article Talk page, claiming that no BLP violation took place, now admits that the very same source he brought to the table demonstrates that the original BLP violation was quite real.

I support the inclusion of a direct, verbatim quote so long as the surrounding prose preserves Rohrabacher's delineation of "radical" Islam. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rohrabacher was interviewed by Newsmax TV. There is no problem with the source. You support the inclusion of a direct, verbatim quote using which source? QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get the cart in front of the horse. First, what do you propose to add to the article? And in what context? I'd say right off the bat that the former section heading "Islam" is off the table, since it is well-established that Rohrabacher wasn't speaking about Islam as a broad topic. It seems to me that Rohrabacher's views on radical Islam might make an appropriate addition to the existing Terrorism section (which should probably also mention that he chairs the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats). Roccodrift (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is.--MONGO 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Beware any editor opposing the inclusion of minor and accurate information solely on the basis that it's "negative". Also, keep in mind that the idea that it's "negative" is itself partisan. To Dana's supporters, his words against (radical) Islam are highly positive, since they agree wholeheartedly. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Both the text quoted in the article and the C-span clip have him saying, "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization." It could be that he did not mean to say that, but that does not make the article false. My dispute with MilesMoney is that he falsely claims the source says there is a controversy. If there had been a controversy, then one would expect a clarification from the congressman and third party comments about what he really meant. Then we could assess the weight of the significance of the "controversy" and assess the weight of different views. TFD (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, whenever Rohrbacher referred to "Islam" it was prefixed by "radical". According to the Wikipedia article about Islamic fundamentalism, "The term Islamic fundamentalism has been criticized by Bernard Lewis, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Eli Berman, John Esposito, among others. Many have proposed substituting another term, such as 'puritanical', 'Islamic revivalism' or 'activism', and 'Radical Islam'." Radical Islam is not the same as Islam generally. No one would confuse "Christian fundamentalist" with "Christian" generally, as one is a subset of the other (and there are various religions within each).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress accused Rohrbacher of "referring to Islam broadly". That appears to have been incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The TP article contains an outright lie in the opening paragraph, and that was the portion of the TP story used in the article. Oh, but TP isn't unreliable? Give me a break. Roccodrift (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating myself, but I'm fine with removing any mention of controversy. I'd rather let the in-context quote speak for itself as a statement of his position on Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I have asked for clarification regarding the meaning of an incoherent sentence in the guideline on identifying reliable sources.[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The congressman's quote was "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization." That is a clear reference to Islam. What else could it mean, but the Islamic religion which motivates extremists. TFD (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You are exactly right. There are other sources with the same quote.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, but it is out of context; it mentions neither Islam nor Christianity nor Judaism. What he was referring to was "Radical Islam". He said so many many times (in the NewsMax interview and in the hearing video).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He said "Radical Islam" but he also said work together against a "religion". Radical Islam is not a religion. I'm sure there will be editors who want to leave out the facts. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinions vary. Did Rohrbacher say Radical Islam is not a religion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What else could it be? StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam is a religion. "Radical Islam" is not a religion, it's a characterization of certain elements of the religion as radical. MilesMoney (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, Miles, but subsets of Islam are often called "religions".[9] As for Radical Islam in particular, many people consider it to be a distinct religion.[10] I have no opinion about it myself. Does Rohrbacher?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It could of been dog-whistle politics to say "I hope we all work together against a "religion". Radicals or terrorists are not a religion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Human sacrifice was part of Religion in the Inca Empire. Not all religions are cuddly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons our biographies are so jacked up. POV pushers like MilesMoney waste ridiculous amounts of time wikilawyering about one comment made by an individual that in the scheme of that individuals life isn't even a fart in the wind.--MONGO 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude, this is not the Albert Schweitzer article, and the US Congress is not a Tailgate party. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo. However Miles Money and other editors have chosen to make this an rs issue. Anythingyouwant calls ThinkProgress a "partisan or unreliable" source, then provides a column from a partisan Canadian tabloid as a source that radical Islam is a religion, adding his synthesis on how the the congressman's words should be read. TFD (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The column in the Canadian tabloid is unreliable and should not be used in the Wikipedia article for that reason (and other reasons). Surely you must realize that I never suggested using the tabloid in the Wikipedia article. I mentioned the tabloid only to illustrate that different people have different opinions about whether "radical Islam" is a "religion". Thus, we shouldn't assume Rohrbacher believes that "radical Islam" is not a religion, based on unsupported assertions by Think Progress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New Proposal:Speaking of radical Islam, "I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization," said Rohrabacher during a hearing in April 2013.[11] QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco

• Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because there is a recurrent problem I decided to present the issue here. There is an editor that has expressed on numerous occasions his intent to include information about the subject of this article. This information does not appear in any reliable sources. I have only seen such information on blogs and forums. This information would qualify as rumor and gossip, and at best fringe theory and views of tiny minorities. The information pertains to casting the subject in a disparaging light. See here the diffs where the editor has disclosed his intentions (from most recent to oldest):

• more on fraud and mistaking my policy abidance for advocacy
• mistaking my policy abidance for advocacy
• about committing fraud
• about being a conman and liar
• about academic degree
• about being a failed inventor
• more on lying
• trying to advance a claim not advanced by the sources to suggest Fresco is lying
• unsubstantiated claims about KKK participation
• exaggerations
• about taking from investors and cult leader
• claims about KKK and white supremacist participation

At first the editor was making changes to the article with claims that neutrality was being addressed. However with time it became more clear that the editor was attempting to make progress toward the allegations above. The editor has not been successful in including this information, probably because I have been persistent in arguing against it. The problem is that this information underlies how the editor regards the subject. Because the editor has a negative regard for the subject, it has become evident that he has been pushing the information in the article in the direction of his views. This has consisted of deleting, reducing, or trivializing information in any way that can subtract significance from the subject. The editor appears to be trying to Right Great Wrongs and give the Truth according to his own preexisting beliefs. This is in defiance of what the reliable sources say about the subject and in disregard of how the sources consistently represent the subject. It goes without saying that it is also an approach that is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines concerning neutrality and original research.

I have tried to explain to the editor that such allegations cannot be included because no reliable sources report on it and no sources represent the article's subject in the way that the editor seeks to represent him. And also that BLPs must be treated very carefully. The editor then mistakes this proper approach for some kind of advocacy on behalf of the subject. Controversies and criticism is welcome if it has reliable sources and due weight. However, none of those listed above satisfies criteria.

Fortunately the information has not entered the article. But plenty of libelous claims have been made on the talk page. Can I have outside judgment of whether the editor's approach is inappropriate or not? Sorry for the length. Had to give context and examples. Thanks to any and all.--Biophily (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

John Cramer (announcer)

Hi,

I have correct information for John's page on Wikipedia.

He was NOT born in Glendale as the Wikipedia page says, but lives in Glendale currently (and since 1965).

I am his sister. He has a brother Michael (b. 1956), sister Susan (b. 1957), and half-brother Bill Buchanan (b. 1964).

He has been married twice and is currently divorced with a girlfriend.

He has 2 children from his second wife, Eileen McNulty. She is the daughter of Dr. James McNulty and Ann Blythe. Ann Blyth is already on Wikipedia. Dr. James McNulty is the brother of actor/singer Dennis Day.

I have lots of information is you want any. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.177 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

what you would need to do, is provide reliably published, third party sources that contain information about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that James McNulty (gynecologist) is at least partially notable - he's not a BLP and he had an obituary in the LA Times. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael H. Prosser

Michael H. Prosser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On-going edit war involving a user who may be the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mopidevi Venkataramana

Mopidevi Venkataramana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just gutted this article of well-sourced information related to corruption charges, could someone check I'm reading WP:BLPCRIME correctly, since it's not a policy I get to use much? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's not "relatively unknown" -- a condition required for the action you've taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Glen Ridge rape

This article needs work, and it contains unsourced info about living people. --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Worrall biography

I am not sure it prvoides a neutral view. There is a use of buzzwords to create a persona that isn't relevant to the article.

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Narayan_Sai_and_Asaram_Bapu

Issue: father and son have both been arrested. How much coverage should the arrest of father be covered (if at all) in article about the son who is barely notable outside the fact that he is the son)? Please join the discussion that was for some reason opened at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Narayan_Sai_and_Asaram_Bapu -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott Andrews (author)

Hello. I am the subject of this page Scott Andrews (author). I have changed my pen name to include my initial, and so my books are now all published as Scott K. Andrews. Would it be possible to change the wikipedia page name to reflect this? Many thanks Scott K. Andrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.245 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this based upon publisher's page here. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

michael cera

Michael Cera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the michael cera wiki, i dont even understand the meaning of the below stated paragraph. It needs to be rephrased, it's not proper english at all.

"Cera also appeared in a staged comedy video that shows him being fired from the lead role of the film Knocked Up after belittling and arguing with the director, in a scene that mocks the David O. Russell blow up on the set of I Heart Huckabees.[11]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.21.73 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to be familiar with the event on the Huckabees set to understand the parody being described. Perhaps just including the word parody will help, e.g.:
Cera also appeared in a staged comedy video which parodied David O. Russell's "blow up" on the set of I Heart Huckabees. It purported to show Cera belittling and arguing with the director of Knocked Up and his dismissal from the project.
— Dwpaul ^Talk 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan King

Can we have some eyes on Jonathan King and its talk page? We have a new editor, User:Trfc06, making a lot of pointed comments on the talk page and arguing that the article should be made "less biased". Whether that's true or not is a matter of opinion, but we need to make sure that any edits and comments made are in line with policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks who ever you are, im new to this and I must say I was shocked how bad this page is. I though wiki would be some sort of fantastic set up, with all relevant facts for you to see. But this page is basically a love letter form the subject to himself. I dont want to make the page a slag off of the subject, but neither can it like it is. We just need the facts on it, and if I disagree with the facts I will accept it, not a problem. So any help appreciated. Thanks in advance. Sorry still dont know how to sign my name! Trfc06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does seem written a little too much in the style of a cv. Why, for example, is Rod Liddle's opinion of him good material for the lead? Why does the part of the article dealing with his conviction for child abuse place so much emphasis on the fact that a list of his celebrity chums supported him at the time, while making no mention of what the charges related to or even mentioning that he was actually convicted (even though these facts are mentioned in the lead)? Formerip (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does not have huge NPOV issues in my view, but there have been attempts at pro-King slanting in the past, possibly from people with a WP:COI. Also, the sourcing should be beefed up to good quality secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the coverage of King's conviction in the article has been inappropriate - although it's much improved by FormerIP and IanMacm's edits today. The version prior to today, IMHO, contained a distinct innuendo that the conviction was in some way unsound, and certainly down-played it. Looking back in the history there appears to have been a long-term issue with IPs and SPA's editing the article in that manner. I think eyes do indeed need to be on the article, but not for the reason stated above. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But some commentators (e.g. Richard Stott in the Mirror, Ian Jack in Granta) DID write that they thought the conviction unsound, and/or that the sentence was unfairly harsh, and surely that view is entitled to be represented in the article? -- Alarics (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The conviction was reviewed by the CCRC and confirmed. (The fact of the review but not the result had be included). I don't think journalist commentary should be given any sort of equivalence, especially tabloid opinion (at least in the case of the Mirror): it was hardly a widespread "campaign". But the main point is that weight of the 2000-2010 section was (until yesterday) disproportionately suggestive that it was a miscarriage of justice, IMHO, rather than a minority commentary. This was accompanied by some rather sly innuendo eg "He was released on £150,000 bail, £50,000 of it put up by Simon Cowell, the impresario, and was re-arrested, after the media publicity, in January 2001" (my emphasis). I think as it is this morning is much fairer. I think that article definitely has a dubious edit history. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed most of the names of supporters because they were mainly sourced to a dead link on a minor news website, with the exception of Richard Stott. I think there's a big BLP issue in naming people as supporters of a convicted sex offender unless we can be totally sure that that is a fair representation of their position.

It may be that more detailed coverage of the sex offences would be warranted. But we also have a responsibility to provide balance. This means not just digging out material that questions King's guilt. It cuts both ways. I note that, above, an interview with some of King's victims has been dismissed as coming from an unreliable source. But the source is the same as for Richard Stott's op-ed. Formerip (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Reid

Melissa Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article is a little known British female golfer called Melissa Reid.

A different Melissa Reid from Britain was convicted of attempting to smuggle cocaine out of Peru on 17th December 2013 and sentenced to 6 years and 8 months in prison. Reid's story recieved huge coverage in the UK and elsewhere since her arrest in August 2013. The vast magority of people in the UK will have heard of Melissa Reid the drug smuggler; very few will have heard of the golfer.

There is a real danger the two individuals will be confused. Already the Melissa Reid article has been amended to reflect the drugs conviction of her namesake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.31.1 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Article warrants being added to some watchlists to make sure the drugs story doesn't creep in. Is a hatnote warranted, since the other Reid isn't notable enough for an article? —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the source which a different IP used to attempt to add the charge to the article shows the two Reids are six years apart in age, so they aren't the same person.[12] —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Is a hatnote warranted, since the other Reid isn't notable enough for an article?" Good idea! At least until the drugs story dies down. The drugs story is big news in UK and Ireland as a quick google will confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.29.1 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes

Tyrone Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to have been written either by the subject himself or an advocate of the subject. It refers to Hayes' work with Atrazine and frogs but fails to note that no other scientist has been able to duplicate his results. The article also cites Hayes' own work and website as supporting evidence for Hayes' assertions, and contains unsourced statements such as:

"This work shows that every scientist who has studied atrazine finds adverse effects on reproduction.[citation needed] The only scientists that do not, are those paid by the manufacturer, Syngenta.[citation needed]" Doobie61 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ross William Ulbricht

plz come to help and improve this article--TheRamtzi (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Al Goldstein

Al Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does the rather non-encyclopedic information added with this edit[13] relating quotes by the subject about religion and pornography belong in this biographical article on the recently deceased pornographer? The subject would no doubt be proud to be remembered this way, and technically he is no longer BLP (but I think we include the recently deceased under BLP guidelines). Mainly unsure if it really adds to the quality of the article and/or meets general biographical guidelines here. Another set of eyes ... Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. In regard to the edit, well, those are his views (perhaps uncouth and offensive to some), and the source seems OK. Perhaps just a bit weighty in relation to the rest of the article, so maybe it can be worked in with a bit less quoting. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)

More eyes please. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the page there removing the phrase "Is a Welsh paedophile" from the lead paragraph. Although he is guilty of such offences, I don't think it's apropriate to state it in this manner. I have time to keep an eye. TF92 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a distasteful situation, but if we stay focussed on what he was convicted on I think things will go fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ned Vizzini

Ned Vizzini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An FYI, there are rumors of his death roaming the internet currently. No official validation in either direction, but extra eyes are warranted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sonora Matancera

12-20-13

To Whom It May Concern,

I am not inserting spam. I merely am including relevant information concerning the history of Conjunto Sonora Matancera. Your edits are unwarranted and detract from the argument I am making.

I do not have a close relationship with anyone associated with La Sonora Matancera. I simply am a fan of their music.

Sincerely,

Alan Bobé-Vélez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.246.248 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for contributing, but edits like this [14] are not liable to be accepted, as they're unsourced and may constitute original research, WP:NOR. Please do add relevant content that's properly sourced. JNW (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I do think the article will profit from further oversight from objective parties. There appears to be a long term issue of WP:OWNERSHIP, which has resulted in the addition of lengthy lists of recordings, as well as unencyclopedic rhetoric. I've commented at my talk page, and have copied the discussion to the article's talk page. JNW (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein

The subject's promotional team has made its reappearance. It will not be long before the flameboys make their return. additional eyes will be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

J. Alan Thomas

Is this person notable? And dead? I tried finding his obituaries, but I found none. I see GENI and FindAGrave used as sources, but they are completely unreliable. I copied credentials of this person to Taxi (TV series) in case of possible merge. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No more or less notable than most character actors in Wikipedia, however I removed all that stuff sourced to a genealogical website and discussion boards, removed claims of him being deceased. In absence of a reliable source supporting the subject's death, they stay alive. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked, and he has a SSDI death record. So yeah, he's deceased. He seems to be pretty obscure, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked it myself. The records don't indicate the same person. there are many a J. Alan Thomas, Jeffrey A. Thomas, or any other similar name. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It lists him as Jeffrey Alan Thomas. While I'd say it's likely they're the same, I'll have a look and see if NewsBank gives me anything. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember, no primary sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There are four dead people named "Jeffrey Alan Thomas" and 13 people named "Jeffrey A. Thomas". We can't find exact location of birth and death. I changed category to "possibly living". George Ho (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Social Security Death Index isn't considered a primary source; the primary source, in this case, would be the death certificate. There was a discussion at the RSN a while back. I agree in this case it shouldn't be used, because the name is very common. Btw, the Newsbank search brings up an Obituary article, but I can't read it and it's from 2009. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Windows Internet Explorer 10 won't let me access NewsBank. It restarts the browser. Either something's wrong with the site or the browser, but the browser's fine with many pages. George Ho (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem somehow resolved. I was able to access NewsBank, and I found no obituaries about the actor from certain sources. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Tavita Kenoly

I, Tavita Kenoly, am currently in the midst of divorce proceedings with my husband, Ron Kenoly. Dr. Kenoly left me for another woman. I do not wish for the autobiography to reflect the erroneous information that we are a happy, loving, family. Please edit your information accordingly.

(redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2180:3B3:219:E3FF:FED8:9D5C (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you really the Tavita wife of Ron Kenoly? Can you verify your divorce? I can't see one in sources. Also, what's with your contact info? George Ho (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I redacted your personal information. Please use the email ticket system to contact us instead, or edit the article yourself if you feel you can remain neutral and provide sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

jay-z

• Jay-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His wiki page is constantly edited to reflect an unconfirmed rumor that he legally changed his last name to Knowles-Carter when he married Beyonce. This is a rumor that has never been proven as a fact. Please edit the information accordingly. His bio should read that his name is Shawn Corey Carter, not Shawn Corey Knowles-Carter. link

Are we back to this? Sigh. I undid the edit and left a comment on the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Anna Sobecka

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

• Self-translated direct quotes attributed to the article subject and POV commentary on the BLP using unreliable opinion commentary sources.

User:Estlandia is placing content using unreliable sources (Michal Gasior is an opinion columnist, writing in Polish, with NaTemat.pl) and attributing self-translated quotes (original language is Polish both for the LP and the opinion columnist) to the same BLP here and here. I did open a discussion on the article talk page [15] to resolve the dispute, but no response has been provided to date other than the second revert listed above. Estlandia admits in the edit comment for this diff [16] for own userpage that my polish is elementary, but it is improving, it is improving..., thus the user is not in a position to provide a reliable translation for a BLP direct quote. Please note that Estlandia is also showing the same behavior on non-BLP articles such as United Poland. Looking for Admin assistance with this matter. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think my translation is deficient, please improve it or remove it. But only then! So far you haven't demosntrated that my translation is wrong in any way. Plus it is not really BLP matter 'cause she herself said such things. PS. AFAIAC (it was there before me) the famous 'Sex is bad as it doesn't develop [the mankind]' can come back it is easily googleable [17]. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that op-ed columns have no business in BLPs. End of story.  Volunteer Marek  21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy applicable to the article in support of your view? Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

BL-F-P. Volunteer Marek  23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim Hyun-jung

• Kim Hyun-jung (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, until recently, was completely unsourced. Now it has two sources, one of which is a Wikipedia mirror and the other a Korean blog. I've tried to talk to the user who is editing the article, but they are a SPA and don't talk. The article needs to be cut way back, and I'd rather that others wield the axe, particularly because I'm perilously close to edit warring with the user, so I have to step back.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rob Neyer

In the sportswriter Rob Neyer's page, two users have inserted mention of his support of Bill James's defense of Joe Paterno. It's true that he wrote an article trying to explain his mentor's action but including it in Neyer's page seems like coatracking especially when it's sourced to a sports tabloid blog, Deadspin, that is not a reliable source. "The site posts commentaries, recaps, and previews of the major sports stories of the day, as well as sports-related anecdotes, rumors and YouTube videos." Neyer has written lots of things that people have problems with, not sure if this particular thing should be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree and have removed the entire paragraph. Deadspin is on the margins of being a reliable source, but the connection trying to be made here is extraordinarily tenuous, and the implication (that Neyer supports Paterno) is completely unsupported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

[18] has been repeatedly added to the BLP -- adding Race and appearance of Jesus which is likely not a proper Wikilink IMO to represent the actual wording she used, and may actually through Wikilink get the BLP under ArbCom sanction regarding "race" in general. I may be oversensitive to adding the "race issue" willy-nilly to BLPs in general, so ask for other input from those who have not made any edits there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC) |

I don't at all see how a wikilink to our article about the race and appearance of Jesus is inappropriate in a sentence discussing Kelly's statement about Jesus' race.

Kelly stated (controversially, as it turns out) that Jesus was white - we conveniently have an article that examines the competing theories as to what race Jesus may have been. Her statement became the subject of significant commentary and derision. How does that wiklink implicate a violation of BLP? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that Kelly was referring to the history of depictions of Jesus? I suggest that where a phrase is rather easily understood by readers that Wikilinking to a marginally relevant article is pretty useless. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Baronof guy. It's an innocuous and relevant wikilink. What's more suspect is the sentence saying, "The day after making the comment she was absent from her show without explanation." Insinuation anyone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Her absence was noted in a article in an RS publication, which the sentence is sourced to. That said, I don't think the sentence is really relevant or necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, Megyn Kelly made an assertion on national television that Jesus' race was white/Caucasian. We have an article specifically discussing the variety of conflicting views of what Jesus' race might have been. Whether or not she intended to, Kelly voluntarily became part of the history of depictions of Jesus by making the statement she made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And if she says she drinks coffee, you will wikilink Coffee on her page? Wikilinks which do not benefit readers are not all that great an idea AFAICT. YMMV. Collect (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This source say she merely had a cold the next day, and also has her elaborating that the skin color of Jesus is "far from settled ". I'd remove the trivia about her next- day-absence, and insert the clarification if it's not already there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hal Mumme

Hal Mumme and Mike Leach came up with the "west coast offense" on several recruiting trips while at Iowa Lutheran when the both coached there together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.24.36 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 

Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently described as a right-wing political activist, but we have a number of really strong sources, from top newspapers to the SPLC, which call her far-right. (They're listed on the article talk page, but we can bring them up here, if necessary.) Due to this strong sourcing, I do not believe that BLP is violated. I'd like a ruling on this, as there are some editors who are taking an obstructionist stance. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)