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.

James Ryan

The biography describes two completely different James Ryan's -- one is an actor from South Africa now in Australia, and the other is a actor, screenwriter, and Rutgers University professor in New York. While it's a fact that the Internet Movie Database entry also confuses the two, the individual arranging the Wiki entry has actually elaborated on it ("...he returned to South Africa"), and deleted statements explaing otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz666 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon

Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

It appears that there is quite a bit of unsourced info and material needing referencing improvements in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Indelicato

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

Joshua Pellicer

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

• - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Eido Roshi's Biography page is being attacked

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

I need help moderating or locking the Eido Tai Shimano Criticism section.

Those who are augmenting the criticism are not signing their posts in a way that can be followed to a name. Right now those who are critical are attempting to suppress a footnote that supports the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995.

Please lock this page until new verifiable information can be added.

I am a very concerned party as I am a Dharma Heir of Eido Roshi and sit on his board, and I can and do state factually that no sexual complaint has been received by the board since 1995.

Thank you,

Genjo Marinello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenquaker (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Attacked?

The objection to the footnote does not concern the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995. The objection is to a reference that states: "By the way, none of the four men I am referring to are members of AZTA, but please be aware that a man who was declined membership in AZTA, in part because Eido Roshi would not acknowledged him as a Dharma Teacher, started the current wave of vilification."

I am the person he refers to as having been "declined membership." The Membership Chairman informed me as follows: "Your application for membership in the AZTA was not "rejected without review," for you have not yet applied for membership in our organization."

Obviously if I have not applied for membership I could not possibly have been "declined" as stated. And there are far more people involved than "four men."

Remove the factually inaccurate material and there is no objection to the reference.

Kobutsu Malone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.214 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here. However, I see no basis for such a request at this time.

Here is a relevant passage from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Zenquaker, it appears that you are the author of the cited source you assert is being suppressed. As such, it is generally not considered appropriate for you to be adding it. Additionally, as an open letter apparently posted to a chat forum, it does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source (q.v.). As such, in my opinion it ought to be removed along with any claim it anchors. I agree that it doesn't speak to the claim that no complaint has been made since 1995, and that therefore it is not appropriate that it be attached as a footnote intended to substantiate that claim. Even if it did speak to this claim, as a work that doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source, it would not be a suitable anchor for that claim in any event.

Descriptions of the controversy must stick especially closely to reports previously published in reliable sources, and must fairly represent "all majority and significant minority views" published in such sources. Any claim not directly supported by a published report in a reliable source should be removed.

Indeed, it appears that both of you have some personal connection to subject of this article. If this is the case, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should avoid editing the article, restricting any edits you do make the reversion of simple vandalism and violations of Wikipedia's policy biographies of living people.

Zenquaker, I note that you have also substantially edited the article Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji, including the section Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji#Genjo Marinello. I would therefore ask you to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with care, especially the sections How to avoid COI edits and Editors who may have a conflict of interest -- Rrburke (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite what has been said here, Zenquaker has now deleted three scholarly references from the criticism section on the page:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Aitken_Shimano_Letters.html

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html

http://www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive.html

This was done under the justification: (→Criticism: removing references of criticism that are inflammatory and redundant.)

It would seem that there is an egregious conflict of interest operating here.

Kobutsu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Those citations don't look like the kind of reliable editorially assesed that we require at wikipedia, as we have other citations there and the content has not been affected IMO we can do without those external links. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Off2riorob: we want only the highest-quality sources when the subject is living and the subject matter is this controversial -- that is, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (RS). One of the two essays cited appears to have been presented at a conference, but there is no evidence that either was published or peer-reviewed and no information about the author's credentials or expertise has been adduced. If the works are unpublished or self-published, they would be wholly unsuitable for inclusion as sources. The raw letters (please see Wikipedia:Primary sources) appear to have been reproduced at a personal website lacking appropriate professional editorial oversight. In order for sources to be considered reliable works of scholarship, they should meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship.

As for the conflict of interest, I agree that Zenquaker has a conflict which would normally render his editing the article inappropriate. However, removing poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person is one of the few things an editor with such a conflict can do. That said, I believe he should now leave off editing this article except under the circumstances set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits (this list includes removing BLP violations). -- Rrburke (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that high-quality sources are what is required here. As a result, I am going to remove the whole "criticism" section. The Aitken book does not support the allegations made (it talks about problems with social relationships), and the other references are to primary sources - letters, some of which are unsigned, some of which seem to be drafts, and some of which don't mention the subject by name. The danger of original research and synthesis etc is thus grave. It is possible that something BLP compliant can be developed, but this needs to be done with considerable care and the best possible sources.--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As the person who expanded the original “Criticism” section to include the Aitken letters, I find the censorship of these allegations against Shimano deplorable. I would like to remind everyone that these allegations are made not by me, nor Stuart Lachs, nor Kobutsu Malone, but by a number of Zen teachers, including Robert Aitken. Aitken is widely recognized as one of the most important and credible Zen teachers in America and has published numerous books and academic articles in peer-reviewed journals. To cast aspersions on Robert Aitken is unconscionable and grossly unfair. Slp 1 implies that the Aitken letters, held by the University of Hawaii, Manoa, may be somehow suspect. Copies of the letters, now housed at http://www.shimanoarchive.com/ have been authenticated by the university and each and every page is stamped by the library. They are authentic and to even suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

Eido Shimano is an important Zen teacher in American Zen. He opened the first Rinzai temple outside of Japan. When the history of American Zen is written, he will, like Robert Aitken, play a prominent role in that history. However, the truth is that Aitken, along with a number of other Zen teachers, including Philip Kapleau, another extremely prominent Zen teacher who did much to bring Zen to America, did write a letter calling for Shimano’s resignation or counselling. The letter was written due to Shimano’s philandering and the damage he was seen as doing to the Dharma in America and to the female Zen students involved. This is a fact, a truth, and the attempt by some at Wikipedia to alter history is censorship of the worst kind.

Genjo Marinello seems to think that because no complaints (as far as he is aware, anyway) have been made regarding Shimano’s sexual abuse of female students since 1995, altering history is acceptable. It’s not. The truth is out there and the readers of Wikipedia have a public interest right to know this history. Marinello knows this truth, that the allegations have not been made frivolously, without substance or by people who are deliberately out to vilify Shimano. If prominent Zen Buddhists such as Robert Aitken make such allegations, they should be taken seriously.

Wikipedians, I urge you to reconsider. Do not hide behind “rules” to alter history. The facts in this case are clear and unequivocal. Trying to alter history is one of the worst forms of censorship and deceit. It does more harm than good. Much more.Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

This has resurfaced as a hot potato, and the opinions of other editors are welcome on the talkpage. Another editor is trying to reinsert poorly sourced material from blogs and websites, arguing, as Thinman10 does above, that the allegations are important enough and the sources good enough. WP seems to be in the middle of some sort of Buddhist campaigning for and against the man. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be allowed. It doesn't express any opinion. It simply provides verified pdf files of Aitken's letters concerning profiled figure. Removal of this info is simply "whitewashing" against all Wiki guidelines for NPOV. The desire to remove this info is simple bias. It is not said that Shimano DID anything - simply that allegations exist, that he denies. However, this controversy is driven largely by allegations by the most senior figure in American Zen and MUST be reflected in entry. I am not affiliated with either party, but am interested in American Zen. This is a serious issue in the American Buddhist community and should be reflected. I have removed zensite.com citations, since all info is at Shimanoarchive. Arguments that this information is not verifiable are simply ridiculous. There it all is! Look at it!Tao2911 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a tertiary journalistic article on shimano allegations here which cites zensite as source. This cite provides us not only with another valuable tertiary source citation, but provides validity for zensite and shimano archives.Tao2911 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding that disputed content, it is weakly cited and primary claims with BLP issues and your additions are imo giving the issue undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not being given undue weight. If you cared to do a simple google search, you would find that Shimano's name and controversy have been inextricably intertwined for decades, as multiple sources reflect. The passage in question is succinct, and without POV. it simply presents that these letters exist, along with a summary of notable content, and that none other than possibly the most important Western born teacher in American Zen has been calling for Shimano to be held responsible for at least 15 years, publicly, and repeatedly. This can hardly be overemphasized, not in one or two lines. The passage now is in keeping with sources.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its undue commentary about a fringe issue cited to fringe citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Would www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for a BLP? ie this article [1] for this edit? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit and article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there is at least some moderation and editing articles before they are published.[2]. I note that the article something of an opinion piece in some ways... see the recommendations at the end.--Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Dylan

Resolved

 – AfD has been initiated. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

.

This article centers on a young woman who announced on the Howard Stern Show that she was going to auction off her virginity. The announcement was nearly two years ago and the 'event' apparently never occurred. Although there was much mention in the press which would qualify Dylan for general notability, is this not a case of WP:BLP1E? It also occurs to me that the article can only accomplish one of two things 1) give unnecessary promotion to an otherwise non-notable individual or 2) cause eventual embarassment to the subject. Thoughts? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be nominated for deletion as per WP:BLP1E via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be a BLP1E case, the coverage though goes over a long enough period it isn't clear cut. I'd suggest putting it up for AfD with a BLP1E argument and seeing what happens. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. It's worth noting that the "Official Myspace Page" of this publicity stunt has been "set to private" which suggests that the stunt is long since over. Most of the references are tabloids of dubious value in the first place, which gives rise to questions as to whether the whole thing was ever authentic in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed this story for awhile and was pretty convinced that it not likely authentic. The backstory changed over time if you traced it. I do wonder what happened to her, though, I suspect a book deal was the ultimate goal.--Milowent (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin BLP

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I need some help with addressing some concerns.

I am concerned about biased language and information being added to the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Herseth_Sandlin), specifically under the "Election 2010" headings. The information included under this section demonstrates strong selection bias inherent in including the Rasmussen polls but failing to include any other third-party evaluative information related to the race. I'm concerned that this violates Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). In addition, some of the most persistently problematic editors have a history of making almost exclusively positive edits to conservative people and organizations' wikipedia pages.

I have a conflict of interest and do not want to make the edits myself. However, I would appreciate an impartial editor should taking a look at the page. I can provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.

I'd like to suggest taking the whole section off that talks about polling for the upcoming election. It's not really the topic of the article, as well as the data having very little value as you said. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

William Rhodes Davis

William Rhodes Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a BLP, but contains claims that strike me as original research to reach a possibly controversial conclusion about Gray Davis (who is living). I can't find a reliable source that makes the claim outright. Could someone with some experience in the area take a look? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content pertaining to Gray Davis that I think violates WP:OR; would still appreciate others' input. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well done. Looks like good work to me, if the user wants to replace it with a stronger citation they can. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any problem with presenting the facts this way....William Rhodes Davis's son, Joseph Graham Davis, married Doris Jane Meyer, daughter of George H. Meyer, in November, 1941. According to a San Diego Union Tribune published obituary on October 8, 2006, former California Gov. Gray Davis was her, and Joseph G. Davis's son? ruidoso —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

The new content is all cited, and I am reluctant to edit war over it as I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the sources. I'm still concerned, though, that without a citation to a single source that makes the connection between Rhodes Davis and Gray Davis, that fact itself may not meet notability standards (i.e. is not covered substantially in reliable sources). I don't know, though, whether the notability standard should be used on specific content within an article, rather than to determine the inclusion threshold for the article in general. If anyone else wants to chip in on this it would be useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

True/Slant; Failure to promote non-controversial hook at DYK, on the non-consensus assertion that the underlying article contains a 1-sentence BLP issue

True/Slant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am involved in a dispute with User:Epeefleche about this article, which has been proposed for promotion to the main page via WP:DYK. The dispute involves the final paragraph of the article, about two individuals recently charged (though not yet convicted) of seeking to engage in terrorist activities.

The paragraph in question quotes a source describing the two as "America's dumbest Jihadis" and mocking a misspelled sign apparently made by one of them. The inclusion of two mugshots draws further attention to the paragraph. I have argued that the presentation of this material violates BLP, while Epeefleche, the author of the article, asserts that it does not.

BLP states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement. It also states that BLP-related content should be presented "responsibly" and in a "broadly neutral" manner. I believe the paragraph in dispute fails these guidelines as it frames these individuals in a prejudicial manner, using mocking headlines and quotes pulled from a tabloid journal. Moreover, this dubious content is superfluous to the topic of the article, which is about the journal, not the detainees. I think the use of the mugshots in this context is also problematic, per the "images" section of BLP. One user has described the overall presentation as "a classic smear".[3]

Given that this article is proposed for exposure on the main page via DYK, I feel it is important to get it right. However, Since Epeefleche and I have been unable to resolve the dispute, I have agreed to have the matter adjudicated by uninvolved third parties at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like simple anti jihadist coatracking to me, the type of which includes all the BLP issues you mention which would have included a main page link to the mugshots of two people as yet not found guilty of the charges. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• For added detail, DYK discussion is here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• More added detail - the DYK has been disapproved. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be concerned about our use of mug shots of people who haven’t been convicted. The only reason we have mug shots is there are no other free-use images of these two that I am aware of. Those mug shots came from the U.S. Marshall’s office and are therefore free-use. We have plenty of images of accused terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The U.S. is busy trying to drop bombs on them and they haven’t been tried and convicted in a court of anything. If someone knows of more flattering pictures (and less grainy ones) of these two alleged terrorists that are free-use, please advise. At least they are arguably clearer than that horrible picture we’re using of bin Laden. I see no reason to poo-poo photographs that illustrate the subject in question for a reason that essentially boils down to the fact that the Marshall’s service caught them in less-than-flattering poses; we work with what we have at our disposal. I try to add plenty of illustrations to my articles; they greatly improve Wikipedia and make it a more professional product. Moreover, reliable secondary sources have frequently been using these very images when they write of this story, so we are not going out on a limb here by any stretch of the imagination when we do the same in an encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg, the debate about this is over. We've had four users object to this content now, articles need a strong consensus to pass at DYK. In regards to your comments about the image, nobody is objecting to the use of these images in the article about the detainees themselves, but their use in this article is unnecessary. And of course the objections were not just about the images, but the text as well. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents, there is nothing objectionable about the content. It simply fails to fail BLP. IronDuke 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Greg and Iron. (Gato has, btw, also failed to count correctly in a past discussion of this issue. There, he argued that one sentence was not in fact one sentence.)

Gato--in his long discourse above--somehow fails to mention what the hook that is at issue says. The hook, which I am seeking to have promoted at DYK, is as follows: "... that Lisa Todorovich wrote in True/Slant that if Warren Beatty's claims to have slept with 13,000 women is true, he would have had to have slept with one woman every 1.17 days from age 14 to age 55?"

Gato sought to have the hook disapproved on BLP grounds. He failed to receive consensus support. A third-party-editor approved the hook. Gato reverted the editor!

Another editor offered as an alternative hook: "... that contributing writers to True/Slant are partly compensated according to how many times their articles are viewed?" Gato said that he does not have a problem at all with the hook(s). Which he views as "fine". But still objected to the hook being promoted. Then another editor (who has given Gato an award in the past, and since appeared at discussions defending Gato) came in and without consensus disapproved the hook per Gato having a BLP issue.

The issue is whether, where there is a completely non-objectionable hook, and the underlying article contains a reference inter alia to a spelling error, there is a BLP issue of such magnitude that the hook (not the article, but the hook) cannot be promoted at DYK.

Gato argues that that is the case. He tried to AfD an article with the spelling error reference. Pointing to what he called a "clear BLP issue". Apparently, it was only clear to Gato. He failed utterly to gain the faintest hint of support for his peculiar view of there being a BLP issue. The AfD closed "Keep".

Undaunted, he then appeared as part of a distinct minority of those who have this peculiar view. His view is not only wrong. It is a completely non-consensus view. As here, yet again. As to Off2 -- hi -- I haven't seen you since I just criticized you for what you did in defending a 6-time blocked mate of yours from an even longer block this past week. Fancy meeting you here.

As to the DYK being disapproved, it was. Under highly curious circumstances. After another editor had approved the hook (only to be reverted by Gato, a highly involved sysop)! By an editor (against consensus) who had himself put up successfully for DYK a hook where the underlying article spoke of a man being investigated for vaginally penetrating a 23-month-old. That, apparently, is fine. A spelling error mentioned in the underlying article ... not so much.

Let's take a look at "the DYK standard". One that is referred to, without a quote or diff ever being supplied, mind you. Let's see how it is applied. Not only does the "disapproving editor" himself boast among his few DYKs a hook where the underlying article speaks of investigations of a living person for vaginal penetration of a 23-month-year-old. But the DYK standard allows for hooks describing people as 10 most wanted fugitives and as be-headers (with pictures to boot). And these hooks (no BLP issues in any of those, apparently) are among those we boast about as having the most hits.

Furthermore, the "disapproving editor" was hopelessly confused. Inasmuch as he erroneously wrote "you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook". Which was, of course, flatly untrue. When the error was pointed out to him, he had absolutely no response. But stuck to his support of Gato, ne'ertheless.

The non-even-handed activity here, in which a couple of editors seek to force their non-consensus POV onto the community, is IMHO reprehensible.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unverified royal divorce

At Talk:Princess Noor Hamzah#Requested move to Princess Noor bint Asem, an article move was requested due to her supposed divorce. This divorce is all over royal-watching forums and websites, but verifying the divorce using reliable sources has eluded me. If it's true, the Jordanian authorities are probably not keen to shout about it, and the Jordanian press show a remarkable reserve compared to their Western counterparts. Comments welcome on whether we should move the title anyway (as it is her maiden name), and what to do about the 'common knowledge' of the divorce, which also affects Prince Hamzah bin Al Hussein. Fences&Windows 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about royalty or about Jordanian customs of naming with respect to marriage. However, not every woman goes back to her birth name, assuming she has changed it, when she divorces. Some may do so quickly, but others go on for years with the divorced husband's surname, especially if they have dependent children. I wouldn't assume a change unless it were to be officially announced. Bielle (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I thought too. We can't bend rules on sourcing for BLPs just because the Jordan Royal family and media is keeping this close to their chest. We just have to be patient and wait for sources (for surely, if it is true, they will eventually appear). Fences&Windows 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan Caruba

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

I have just removed an entire criticism section from this BLP, it has sourcewatch and exxonsecrets used as refs, could someone take a look please to assure me i have done the right thing mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have only had a first look - Exon Secrets is not reliable is it? Have you had discussions about the site and sourcewatch at at the RSN? Some of the content looks not to be perhaps in need of a rewrite. IMO total removal is a bit excessive for a first step. You could try moving it to the talkpage for discussion or just removing the unreliable citations and the worst of any negative attack type content, I notice there has been nothing on the talkpage for amost two years, but opening a tread there about the issue will allow any interested parties to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well exxonsecrets is an adcovacy site and there is no way that can be used in a blp, sourcewatch is an open wiki so that can`t be a reliable source either, i`ll move the lot to the talk page as you suggest and see what others have to say mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, always good to open discussion threads and to get feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not defending what was removed, but there's now little more than stuff referenced to primary sources, non-notable websites and Caruba's letters to the editor. The two block quotes in Alan Caruba#Views are especially overkill, given the sourcing. I suggest removing the soapboxing and scary quotes might provide a more realistic article length than what's been batted around and battled over the past couple of years. Flowanda | Talk 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Byrne (jazz musician)

The entry reads like an advertisement. The historical relevance of the person in question is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.201.179.61 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page was created by User:Ed Byrne Jazz and then moved to the current location by someone else. On the other hand, the page itself, taken at face value, suggests there is no problem here and there is sufficient notability. Just to be sure this isn't a hoax page (I have no expertise in the area) I will do some more googling now to learn more. But I think initially that this is probably fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real issue over notability, but it's a copyvio of Byrne's allaboutjazz.com entry (compilation of bio and discography pages.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I added some possibly useful links on the talk page. He's clearly at least arguably notable (I think, but I don't have enough knowledge to judge), although actual information is fairly thin on the web.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks a bit fluffy, wrote a couple and played on some records, a jass teacher with books and such, gives lessons etc. I can't imo see much that asserts a deal of notability as a jazz musician or independent reporting in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. Other editors, please feel free to create a new and different page, based on independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Default edit page notice for BLPs ?

What happened to the default edit page notice for BLPs? Used to be there, now it is not? -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Try bypassing your cache? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ?

Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ?

I had recently removed completely unsourced information from some articles on BLPs. A few of these edits were reverted - by SQGibbon (talk · contribs). See for example, [4] and [5]. I do not think it is appropriate, once removed, for another user to add back completely unsourced material to a page on a WP:BLP. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the information. For negative information (or information plausibly considered negative by the subject of a BLP), it is clearly inappropriate. For neutral or positive information, I think it can be a judgment call but it is much much much better to provide a source - or at least at a bare minimum some indication that a check has been performed. Here the reason is not BLP, per se, but quality and respect for the person who remove it (who likely had some good reason, particularly if a longtime contributor in good standing).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is okay to have completely unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, even if that unsourced information is deemed to be "positive" or "neutral" ... -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked in imdb (took only a few seconds) and confirmed the information for Michael D. Roberts, and added it back. I'm not 100% sure of how good imdb is regarding for general sourcing but for a basic filmography it seems fine, no?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I know, IMBD is considered reliable for basic filmography and similar but not reliable for any biographical content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you check everything in all the material you added back??? Or just that one sentence? Does IMDB verify he is "known" for that role? Or just confirm the role itself? You should not have added back this poorly sourced info to a BLP. It is one thing to use IMDB for a table filmography. It is quite another for main-body-paragraph-text. Please remove it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just done the same for Marissa Ribisi. If you have a problem with the wording "known" for Mr. Robertson then I would recommend changing it? For Marissa, I did check all the information in the thing, including that she has both an acting and writing credit for one movie, and that another movie was her first major role. (Her earlier credits were guest appearances on television programs.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the poorly sourced info you added to two BLP articles, until you can find a better source than the one you used, especially for the commentary and assertions that are not backed up by that source. Please remove that info. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through Michael D. Roberts to carefully address each concern that you had. In some cases, I toned down the language. In other cases, I simply removed the fact tag. As an example of the latter, I do not think it is necessary for us to have a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. We link directly to the article on the film which notes that it won 4 Oscars and was the highest-grossing film of 1988. I am beginning to be concerned that this is not about these two biographies but that you are trying to make some broader philosophical point? Why don't we discuss that directly instead of you doing strange things here to these routine biographies?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, it seems to be that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) is attempting to put forth the notion that it would be perfectly acceptable to have an entire WP:BLP article on Wikipedia be sourced only to IMDB as a source, even in the main-body-text-paragraph portion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I neither said, nor implied, nor believe, anything of the sort. What I did imply, and stand by, is that it is incredibly pointy of you to ask for a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. Neither of these biographies are great - however neither are they awful, and IMDB is a perfectly good source for the basic data mentioned - even in the main-body-text-paragraph.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a good source for commentary about roles in films/television. Other Wikipedia articles linked to, does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. Even for Rain Man. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, this has been brought up before. While it may seem ok to keep unsourced neutral or positive information in a BLP, upon further thought there is a problem with doing so. Information that seems positive or neutral could still cause real-life harm to the BLP subject, because if it is false it might contradict with how the person has represented him or herself to others and could make them look like a liar or dishonest. I agree that IMDB can be used for some basic filmography information for the subject. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. Please go review the edit histories of the biographies in question. I have not argued for anything remotely close to a blanket ok on unsourced information of any kind. But there are cases where it is clearly a judgment call. As an example, Cirt challenged with a fact-tag that Rainman was a hit film. I removed that fact tag and did not supply a source - though if someone wants to source that, I have no objections, neither is it necessary to do so. We link to Rain Man and it - fully sourced - establishes that fact without difficulty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree here with Cla68 (talk · contribs). It is wrong to keep in unsourced material in a BLP article, simply because a particular editor deems it their personal opinion that said info is "neutral" or "positive" in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Jimbo Wales, linking to another Wikipedia article, is not sufficient sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you point blank, then. You are claiming that when we mention that a certain actor was in Rain Man (with a source which proves that fact) we can't say, for reader context, that Rain Man was a hit film, without finding a source for that particular claim? That this obviously true statement, positive about the subject of the article, should be removed? That linking to our article on Rain Man is not sufficient? I am asking about this particular case, not all cases imaginable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think linking to another Wikipedia article is sufficient sourcing. I am quite surprised that you do. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't "sourcing" at all. It's completely valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent addendum): Policy backs me up 100% here: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

That Rain Man was a hit film is not challenged nor likley to be challenged. Neither is it in any way "contentious". Insisting that every fact in a BLP be sourced is absolutely without precedent in policy. I say this as perhaps one of the strongest advocates of quality sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to have wholly unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, especially for the reasons outlined above by Cla68 (talk · contribs). Insuring information is cited to WP:RS secondary sources, helps to easily avoid those problems. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I am very glad that insuring information is cited to WP:RS is precisely what I was doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the case of referring to Rain Man as a hit film, it's best to reword that phrasing as "hit" could mean a variety of things. It doesn't indicate if it was a hit with critics, awards organizations, box office, viewers, etc. We'd be better off specifically stating why it was a hit. In addition, unless his role was really related to the negativity/success of a film, we likely don't need to mention anything except for the plain "he played the role of Vern in Rain Man". If he was one of the main roles (or a minor notable one) such as Tom Cruise or Dustin Hoffman, further explanation could be more helpful for the reader on the impact of the film. Concerning IMDB, we should not be using it for citing materials as it is an unreliable source (outside of the news postings they provide, but even then, that is usually also available elsewhere). Information on IMDB is user-submitted and although it can be accurate, it is usually best to use it as a starting point for finding details to lead to more reliable sources. Linking to it in the external links should be sufficient for his roles in the filmography section, but not for citing biographical details. The film itself should be sufficient for mentioning the credits, but if additional citations are needed, something like this could work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said in this comment by User:Nehrams2020, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Cirt's deletion on the Jason Lee article here. I assumed good faith and asked nicely several times for Cirt to point out the claims that he/she were challenging or thought likely to be challenged as per the very specific wording of WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." or in violation of any other section of BLP. The conversation went nowhere as you can read here. My feeling is that the problems Cirt is pointing out are non-BLP content issues that would be better handled via tagging ("citation needed"), brought up on the talk pages, rewritten, or some other less bold action as there seems to be some babies being thrown out with bathwater. SQGibbon (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading through this thread, I must ask, is this really the place for this discussion? Isn't this notice board for incidents that need immediate attention? In that spirit though, I agree with Jimbo, that not everything in a BLP needs a source. Only information that is likely to be challenged absolutly needs a citation. Yet, citations are better than no citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info should not exist on BLP articles. It would be much easier to move it to the talk page, and work on it there. There is simply no reason to be hasty about reverting and adding unsourced or poorly sourced info back onto a BLP page, instead of working on it on a subpage or the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought I was as much a BLP hawk as anyone, but I'm certainly being outdone here. I'm in close agreement with Mr Wales on this matter, although I probably draw slightly finer lines. There are several principles that I think should be kept in mind. First, current BLP is a relatively recent addition to Wikipedia policy, and was not intended to require the wholesale deletion of content with significant encyclopedic value which does not meet its more stringent sourcing standards and does not raise issues under substantive content policies; instead, it envisions a steady process of improved sourcing. Second, not every aspect of every assertion must be pinpoint-sourced every time it appears; for example, if an article on a writer asserts that "a major influence on his work is Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow," but in the reference the writer simply cites the title, expecting his audience to know that GR is both a novel and written by Pynchon, that's OK. It's often useful to make explicit what a source leaves implicit; so long as the implicit claims are well-sourced in a more germane linked article, there's no basis for treating them as potentially contentious. If every mention of "President Obama" or "Queen Elizabeth II" or similar figures required a direct citation to a source establishing the legitimacy of the title, we would soon drain the global supply of footnotes dry. Writing a useful encyclopedia requires both sound mechanical rules and the exercise of sound judgment; this is an area where the latter is more important. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, anything is not likely to be challenged, shouldn't need a citation. The articles would be overwhelmed and monotonous with citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is fine for basic filmography. That Rain Man was a hit film does not need a citation, whether the actor is a Scientologist or not. --JN466 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are all of the actors under discussion Scientologists? Just curious... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The three raised above are, yes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Cirt's contribution history from July 3rd and look for the edit summaries with the phrase "removed unsourced information, from a BLP article page", you'll see that Cirt took this approach with over 40 other people associated with Scientology. SQGibbon (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was removing unsourced info from WP:BLPs listed at the page List of Scientologists. Those pages are on a controversial topic, and often contentious as well, so removal of completely unsourced information from them, is the best way to go here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been a bit off-course here, Cirt. Take [6]. Sourcing it would have been so easy for someone with your abilities. As it is, you removed useful content. --JN466 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially on controversial topics, best for unsourced info on WP:BLPs to be moved to the talk page, and sourcing efforts to take place there. But noted, and in the future, I will not just remove blatantly unsourced info, but also make a note of it and place the material in question, on the article's talk page. :) Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you aren't serious, it won't be appropriate for the talk page either in some, perhaps most, cases. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I would tend to agree with you that unsourced info should not remain on article-space pages in most cases - unfortunately apparently others here have a more cavalier attitude towards unsourced info remaining on BLP pages. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of images of signatures

A complaint has been made by an employee of the New Zealand parliament about use of images of signatures of MPs. The thread at the policy Village Pump is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Signatures. Please comment there. Fences&Windows 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should self published videos of the subject be included as a list in the subject's BLP?

Eckhart Tolle has created a series of free videos which are available for viewing on his official web site Eckart Tolle TV [7]. A link to this web site is already included in the External Link section of the Tolle article. At present these 13 (and counting) videos are also individually listed in the article, in the section titled Publications. [8] Is it appropriate to list self published videos in this BLP? Thanks for you input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks to me as more of a regular content dispute than a WP:BLP issue. Since the article recently underwent a GA review, perhaps the reviewer would have an opinion? decltype (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A single link would be plenty, more than that is promotional. Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've invited the GA reviewer via his User Page to come here and comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and I think a single link is fine. I'm not sure why it would be "promotional" to list multiple self published videos (he's a notable individual), but it creates unnecessary clutter in the article. They are technically publications, but we should avoid listing them all for the same reason that we don't list the names of every essay in a published book. Claritas § 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Buffy Sainte-Marie

Buffy_Sainte-Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

As it is completely unsourced, I am concerned the section Genealogy Corrections might be potentially libellous. - BalthCat (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and just edited the talk page to remove that section. The editor who posted it has not been active since July 2009 so I do not think any further action is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can some other editors please have a look at the lede of this BP, there is a weakly cited genetic claim being added to the lede like this...

Buffy Sainte-Marie, OC (born Beverly Sainte-Marie, February 20, 1941 or 1942)[1][2] is an aboriginal Canadian singer-songwriter,[3]

I have removed it and requested discussion and stronger citations and to move the genetic claims from the introduction as per WP:MOS but it has been replaced again. Please have a look and comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is the problem? Her ethnic identity belongs in the lead as, in my opinion it is an important part of the way people know her, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) doesn't have the word 'ethnic' in it (and WP:MOS only has it in relationship to the word Arab). Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that she is indeed Cree, and that this is significant to her notability. The lead should state her tribal affiliation, not call her "aboriginal", which though true, is less accurate and does injustice to her tribal identification. I've corrected the article. Yworo (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's actually pretty standard for First Nations Canadians to identify themselves by tribal membership, often for very specific political reasons (not to be mention cultural). I think it's appropriate in this instance to include her Cree heritage in the lede. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same for Native Americans in the U.S. I'd personally find the use of aboriginal rather than First Nations or Cree (or in my case Mi'kmaq) to be rather offensive, even if technically correct. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal is a word that creates unnecessary problems. It is technically correct to use this in a generic sense but why not use the more specific and accepted terms? Is it a crude analogy to compare this to describing someone from France as European rather than French in the lede? freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should probably say Cree. Certainly not aboriginal. But the lead should mention her ethnicity as it is part of her notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for looking into that, it appears to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Greenstein

Scott Greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Greenstein&action=historysubmit&diff=372422262&oldid=345781175 // SwedMusicFanz (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Watched, BLP is a bit promotional and with only a single primary citation, needs improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna Chapman

As some may know, the accused spy Anna Chapman has received a great amount of attention unrelated to the spying allegations. The article currently (permanent link) has a brief section containing some rather detailed claims about her sex life. While extensively covered in tabloid sources I question whether covering these allegations are necessary for someone who's primary reason for notability is spying (even more so since she appears to have claimed they are lies) Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped out the entire section related to her sex life - we're not a tabloid and BLPs should always be written conservatively. Exxolon (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit, pure tabloid titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, I think this bio is a case of BLP1E and should be merged into the general article. I recognise that the chances of editors agreeing to this merge after pictures of this attractive woman have been plastered all over the media are rather slim. Fences&Windows 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels (global warming BLP)

I was doing some WikiGnome work on our article on Patrick Michaels when I happened to notice some controversial information that was poorly sourced. AFAIK, we're not supposed to be citing blogs or opinion pieces for contentious material about living persons unless written or published by the subject. So, in this edit,[9] I removed material that was sourced to a blog. In this edit,[10][11] I removed material that was sourced to an op-ed. Can someone please review my edits to make sure that I am correctly follow policy?

Also, I'm concerned with the paragraph that says, "Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[14] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[15]" The first cite is broken. I found an archived copy of the source here.[12] It appears to be a press release. The second source is a book which I don't have access to. I wasn't sure what to do, so I left it in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(note I think the 2nd diff was meant to be [13]?) Both of the deletions seem ok on the grounds given (being op-eds, so not meeting blp). Re "Climate scientist..." I'd guess the American Geophysical Union is good enough, and while the book's author's opinion would need to be attributed (at the very least) given that he's only relaying Wigley's comment that seems ok. Misarxist (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist: Yes, that second diff was supposed to be [14]. I fixed it above. Thanks for looking at my edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? Another editor has resorted the contentious BLP material.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the above does not state our policy on BLPs and blogs correctly. It actually says " Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." So what exactly is the problem here? Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see a big issue here, attribute and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. The second column[16] is doubly problematic, as the author is basically describing a conspiracy (against Michaels and others), that in and by itself should discount it as BLP material - but there is an additional factor.... All of these accusations have been examined by official inquiries, and been found to be without basis in reality (see Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the second column is inappropriate; however, Monbiot piece seems just fine and relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the only one I looked at, and it seems ok to me, none of the comments above seem a good reason to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hisham Mackie

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

The article is full of errors and has over-inflated and exaggerated figures about Hisham Mackie's history and income. This is due to someone who has mal-intent against this person. This biography should be removed at once. Diamond exports and other data should be cited appropriately, which is available publicly through the Sierra Leone Mines Authority, the World Trade Organisation, the Sierra Leone Kimberely Process Committee, amongst other official sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.154.30 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is proposed for deletion. I support that. The one source Global Policy Forum seems to be trustworthy enough but just mentions him in passing.Wolfview (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Negative iinformation

I do not understand how unproved and negative information can be posted on your webpage. Teh article about Rahul Gandhi is very negative. Do you have such articles on Obama, or Blair or Prince Harry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.0.223 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is yes, we have criticism in articles on people such as Obama and Blair. There's no problem with that, see WP:NPOV. If you have any specific complaints about unsourced material in Rahul Gandhi then they can be examined, but I see 50 references at the moment so the article as a whole is sourced. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that specific complaints would help. To compare the quality/oversight of this bio to the Obama article is pretty silly, imho. Also, have you tried using the article's talk page? The bio does seem to have alot of "controversial" stuff, but maybe this guy has done alot of controversial stuff? There seems to be alot of praise woven into the article as well. Overall, this could probably use some improvement. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jalal Merhi

Birth date of 1967 on this bio is incorrect - probably 1957. I worked for Jalal in the jewellery biz in 1979 and he was certainly not 12 yrs old. Note also his most competitive yrs in martial arts were 1978 through 1986 - ages 21 through 29, not 11 through 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.81.147 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G fixed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Morrow321 and Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination

• On the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Morrow321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a lengthy tl;dr diatribe accusing a man by the name of Billie Sol Estes of orchestrating the murder along with Lyndon Johnson. Original addition, my initial reversion, subsequent addition. This is just the latest in a lengthy string of JFK-centric lunacy from this particular account, which (aside from this lovely addition to Chelsea Clinton's biography three years ago) seems to be a JFK-centric single-purpose-account. Badger Drink (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I'm inclined to give this guy the boot after reviewing his contributions. In three years, he's contributed absolutely nothing to mainspace, and maligned a bunch of people in the process. Should we move this to ANI and propose a topic ban from conspiracy theories? Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. There are many sane and rational people out there who have doubts as to the validity of the Warren Report on the JFK assassination. All this user seems to be doing is starting discussions about content. Isn't that encouraged? Why disparage someone elses opinion, just because you don't agree with it? I saw no evidence of edit warring or incivility, so for lack of any policies not being adhered to, I don't see that anything should be done at all. User is doing everything within the policies and guidelines of this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a CAPSLOCK INFUSED rant calling Lyndon Johnson a mass murderer and adding long tangents about Chelsea Clinton being so-and-so's lovechild is totally within policy. Do you even bother to click diff links, or are you so sure of Wiki-injustice that you feel compelled to mash "edit this page" before bothering to inform yourself? Badger Drink (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did I wrong you in another life? I guess good faith only goes so far these days. Maybe Prince is right and its all going to go away soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I directed half the stuff at you that your apparent client slings about in the direction of various politicians and politicians' offspring, you'd be trembling with such indignant rage that you'd very nearly mess up the Wikilink to WP:NPA in your no-doubt seething reply to me. That, to me, is the definition of an unproductive contributor. I'm still curious how calling LBJ a "STONE COLD KILLER" and adding completely unsourced information about Chelsea Clinton's alleged illegitmacy in article-space constitutes doing anything, let alone everything, "within policies and guidelines of this site". Badger Drink (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the edits made at Chelsea Clinton, then you should have brought it up 3 years ago when it mattered. Otherwise, your taunting replies have no effect on me, but your incivility and bad faith are border-line rude and will not be tolerated.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can look at Morrow's contributions and still say he's a productive contributor, I don't know what to say. I guess you're the sort who still puts your hand on the red-hot stove burner just in case it's not really hot this time. Me, I'm perfectly willing to declare red-hot stovetops a Bad Thing after the second or third painful experience. My hunch, though, continues to be that you're not truly that clueless or blinded by good faith, but rather that you never really clicked any of the links I provided and instead raced to play devil's advocate and are now furiously sticking true to your guns rather than admitting your initial rush to judgement. Meanwhile, I'll be busy advocating that people not stick their hands on red-hot stovetops, much to your apparent dismay. See you in the burn ward... Badger Drink (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[ BLP removed KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris ]

[gross violation of WP:BLP removed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)]

Morrow321 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for you, Jclemons, the John Kennedy Assassination page is a fraud and a sham. It is an embarassment that Wikipedia would be carrying water for the completely discredited Warren Report ... and by extension the murderers of John Kennedy 47 years later. There are probably people walking around today who have criminal liability in the JFK assassination: George Herbert Walker Bush being just one of them. How can folks contribute to the mainpage of Wiki if it is locked down and only the discredited "lone nutters" are allowed to edit? The American people don't buy the propaganda that this page is pushing on JFK... Here is just one little nugget on GHW Bush - his response to Nixon's smoking gun transcript that references the JFK assassination (in code, Bay of Pigs): http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

GHW Bush's response was this: http://www.google.com/search?q=Timmons+asked.+%E2%80%9CHe+broke+out+in+a**holes+and+sh*t+himself+to+death%2C%E2%80%9D+was+Burch%E2%80%99s+answer%2C+confirming+that+anytime+Nixon+referred+to+%E2%80%9Cthe+Texans%2C%E2%80%9D+he+meant+George+Bush+Sr.&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

So there I think there are MANY areas relating to the JFK assassination where Wiki can get more FACTUAL and ACCURATE. And it ain't what is on the page now. Morrow321 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While Jojhutton makes a good point that there are many people who can rationally and productively contribute to the dialogue on conspiracy theories, I think Morrow321 has proved my point that he's not one of those people better than I ever could. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jclemons, you are welcome to believe anything you want to about the JFK assassination. But the problem with Wiki's entry on it is that it shows any respect for the Warren Report or the HSCA. Seriously, Wiki uses these politically motivated cover ups as "sources" for anything relating to the JFK assassination? The vast majority of Americans agree with me [they reject the Warren Report], despite the fact (or rather because of) the fact they have been lied to by killers in government, the major media and the "establishment" about the JFK assassination for 47 years. Calling Oswald as a "belligerent" on the Wiki page is a farce .. with no info on who the REAL murderers of JFK were and WHY they murdered him. Wiki needs to get up to speed to reflect the fine work that has been done by that assassination research community. Morrow321 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morrow321, you need to stop pushing poorly sourced conspiracy theories or you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to try to right great wrongs: we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See Wikipedia:No original research and also Wikipedia:Truth for why we can't use your contributions. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

David Novak

David Novak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some IPs and SPAs have been attempting to turn David Novak into a book report about his books. I'm not sure if it's promotional material or where it comes from, but it's obviously copied from somewhere. (One of the versions of it they are trying to add begins with an essay on Rashi's philosophy of medicine.) --B (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That entire BLP page appears to be blatantly unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a fairly long discussion the talk page about what seems to me to be a WP:UNDUE discussion in the article regarding criticisms by HonestReporting and CAMERA. The criticisms have been challenged by one editor on the grounds of being a self-published source, but WP:UNDUE hasn't been specifically mentioned.

My view is that this is probably, although not certainly, WP:UNDUE. The question is likely whether or not 3rd party independent sources regard this as a notable criticism. I won't be getting directly involved in editing it myself, but thought that rather I would ask for more eyes on the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Has there been coverage of the same material from the above-mentioned sources, in other independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much. A famous blogger (blogging for The Atlantic, a perfectly fine magazine) called the criticism "smears and character assassinations" - in an opinion column. All of it seems to be opinion columns, as opposed to 3rd party reporting in a neutral or at least attempted-neutral setting. Mr. Hari seems to be the main source for it, ironically enough, having devoted a column or two to attack those who attacked him. (This is one reason why it may not be a self-published source situation, although it might not be anyway, since the two sources do apparently have some editorial oversight.)

Not much is not zero, which is why I'm unsure here. Certainly there has been no 3rd party neutral or neutral-ish news coverage of a controversy, but I wonder if that standard might be unreasonable for giving readers a good understanding of various opinion columnists and their work. Mr. Hari writes often in defense of Palestinians (with some heated rhetoric) and so of course he attracts the attention of those who defend Israel. I'd hate to say that we can't explain that reasonably well to readers, while at the same time, I think we shouldn't take one little dustup and turn it into a centerpiece in someone's life.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod, agreed. Seems like good practice would be a mention, yes, but due to the lacking of significant discussion from independent reliable secondary sources, not to the degree of depth currently given. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Max Boisot

Max Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having some issues with user:81.110.111.164 on the above page. Per this I deleted a reference to a relationship with Prince Philip which has been the subject of much title tattle. I did this at the request of Boisot who I know. The IP concerned has not just inserted the material, but also a "denial reference" which is in the worst tradition of gutter journalism. Boisot is a minor figure and entitled to some protection. Its made worse in the this case as the IP is playing WP:Hound after edit warring over a political template where he cannot get agreement and has failed to observe WP:AGF in his/her comments.

If I have got the policy on protection of minor figures wrong then OK, let me know and I will suggest to Boisot that he asks for the whole article to be deleted. If I have it right then can someone with the right authority levels get rid of the material?

Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that it's the case that our articles are not censored by request, and that something that the subject merely finds uncomfortable is not subject to removal. The claim is sourced (the article names the subject himself as its source), and would appear to be directly relevant in context since it forms the basis for his gaining entry to the school in question. I suggest that Snowded has a conflict of interest and his report here is an attempt to play the man rather than the ball. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably best to discuss this on the talk page of the article. Considering that the source is the Mirror, I'd lean towards just leaving it out. It doesn't seem very relevant.  –Joshua Scott 01:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My report here is seek guidance from the community as to what is permitted and what is not. My concern is that reporting an "accusation" from a tabloid newspaper is in effect to give publicity to a minor figure which is damaging to that person. Its not a fact about the subject which the subject finds discomforting, but the unsubstantiated accusation of illegitimacy which goes with it. My belief has always been that Wikipedia has always been careful of minor living figures in this respect. I am hoping that the community can resolve this quickly. --Snowded ^TALK 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The article didn't claim anywhere that he was illegitimate. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Disingenuous at best. The opening sentence of the Mirror article has the phrase "spent a lifetime denying that Prince Philip is his father." Its the classic tabloid sleaze, force someone to deny something so the suspicion remains that it is the truth --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Continued on Talk:Max Boisot.
• My initial reaction, Snowded, is "What on Earth?". Either you or the person you are in external communication with are making a serious mistake in confusing godchildren with bastards. Either that or you are confusing what the source says with what the article itself said.

  Anyway, both the Mirror article cited and (it appears) the original source, ISBN 9781850892564, both clearly talk about Marcel Boisot as the (eventually acknowledged) father. (Page 103 says outright: "She had been deeply in love with the father, Max [this appears to be a typo, as it says Marcel elsewhere] Boisot, a French airforce officer in wartime England but he deserted her and the children, though she says they are now reconciled." My emphasis.)

  So surely we can avoid this whole issue by just having the article name Marcel as Max's father ("Max Boisot is the son of World War II French airman Marcel Boisot and cabaret star Hélène Foufounis (who used the stage name Hélène Cordet)."), sourced to article and books? (The stage name part is sourceable to page 188 of ISBN 9780385299176.) Compare Louise Cordet. That's what M. Boisot wants the world to know, after all, right? Uncle G (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Reporting facts is fine, using innuendo (see my response to the IP above) is not. Your suggestion is perfectly acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • What weight should be given this and these? AJRG (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • My view here is that unless it can be shown that this bit of tabloid speculation is somehow notable in the life of Max Boisot (which seems unlikely) it should be left out completely, particularly since this is a relatively short biography anyway.

        At the same time, while the Mirror is clearly not a valid source for much of anything in anyone's biography, it should be at least thought about whether the fact of Mr. Boisot being Prince Philip's godchild is relevant. (I join Uncle G in wondering whether there may have been some confusion here about the term "godchild" - which does not imply anything negative about paternity at all, but is instead a completely honorable tradition.) It may or may not be an interesting and relevant fact about Mr. Boisot that his family is close to the royal family, but I'm not in any position to know about that.

        I also agree that this discussion ought to be on the talk page of the article, and therefore I'm going to copy it there now, so that it might prove useful to anyone who wants to revisit this question in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Continued on Talk:Max Boisot.

People sometimes described as Scientologists who deny they are Scientologists

I know this is a contentious issue, but I'm puzzled by the way of handling it which has recently emerged here. Without stipulating that being a scientologist is a positive or a negative, I can imagine analogous lists - People sometimes described as gay who deny they are gay/People sometimes described as drug takers who deny they are drug takers/and so on. Surely this isn't how BLPs are supposed to be handled. Credible denial quoted in a reputable source should be the end of the matter, no?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Well, there are lots of refs that point to an association with scientology, but not much on actually stating they are Scientologists. In any case, looking at Talk:List_of_Scientologists I see a ton of admins and BLP editors, so I guess that's what they worked out as being best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot list of actors who have been described as having had a small rodent removed from their behind but deny it....Seriously, folks can "deny" whatever they want, they doesn't change "facts" presented from reliable sources, and whether "material" is to be included in a bio/list. The 3 folks included in that "list" have had some "interaction/dealings/whateveryouwanttocallit with Scientology. Does it rise to the level where it should be reported/covered and have them on this list? Not sure? I am sure/hope there was alot of discussion about how to handle this, and that the sourceing is reliable/NPOV, anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The way the article stood before I came to it, the denials were not included at all; Chaka Khan was listed as a member, Will Smith was simply added as a "course participant", while his wife Jada Pinkett-Smith was included in the "List of members". I researched/added the denials for Chaka Khan, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith and created the subsection for disputed cases, as there was no support on the talk page for removing these three entries. One plausible argument against removal is of course that if they were removed, editors would always come to the article with a reliable source trying to re-add these names, and it is better to have both the RS description and the denial in the article. A plausible counter-argument that was raised in discussions was that per WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question", but this did not find consensus, as editors at List of Scientologists have argued that identification in WP:RS should trump self-identification as the inclusion criterion in this list article.

Current status is that the section for Chaka Khan, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith is simply called "Disputed", with the byline "Individuals characterized as Scientologists in secondary sources who have publicly disputed this characterization." --JN466 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that satisfactory to you? If not, why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a really tough call. I personally would prefer not listing people who publicly deny being Scientologists, and/or who cannot be shown to have ever self-identified as Scientologists, in List of Scientologists. I lean towards extending the BLPCAT rationale to the inclusion criteria for the list. I would also dispense with the "Course participants" section listing people who merely tried a Scientology course or two, without ever identifying, or being described, as a Scientologist. However, the opposite viewpoint -- that we should include people who have been described as Scientologists in a reliable source, even though they may deny it, and that we should have a section for people who tried Scientology courses – is arguably more NPOV, more reflective of the amount of speculation and rumour that exists in reliable sources out there, and some of the content it generates (as in the Christopher Reeve entry, or the Smiths' entries), is not without value or interest. In a way I would be sorry to see these entries go. Having these entries also aids article stability, as otherwise we might get editors trying to reintroduce people all the time. The one thing I would insist on is that an effort should always be made to research and present the self-identification of the person before they are included -- if they deny ever having been a Scientologist, or say they just looked into it once, their statement must be in the article. So I think it's really hard, with a certain amount of tension between BLP and NPOV. --JN466 03:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's also how I feel, and well said. It's kind of like our hands are tied by the various sources who like to create drama whether there it exists or not. Having their self identification as the first sentence sounds like a good idea. I'm sure it's a contentious area, and edicts from this page won't mean much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's an interesting question that could theoretically affect quite a number of list articles, I've started a thread at the BLP talk page. --JN466 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is interesting, because I believe it comes problematic as soon as you start replacing "Scientologist" with other (rightly or wrongly) contentious descriptions.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Mo Saheed

Resolved

Ran across the bio of Mo Saheed while cleaning up WP:UNCAT. There appear to be some reports at the bottom vaguely connecting him to white-collar crime. I'm not clear on dealing with such issues (I just cover history and such), so bringing it here as a possible concern. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted on BLP grounds Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Scientologists -- Gloria Gaynor

Editors at List of Scientologists are of divided opinion whether a source identifying the singer Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist is up to WP:BLP standards. The source has also been used in the Gloria Gaynor BLP to categorise and identify her as a former Scientologist.

The source we are concerned about is a short piece in The Guardian, published in 2006 in the Guardian's G2 supplement, under "Diversions", with the title "Listed Scientologists". The piece, which is not available online, contained no text, only an alphabetical list of names as follows:

---

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

Kirstie Alley

Beck

Sonny Bono

William Burroughs (reformed)

Nancy Cartwright

Leonard Cohen (reformed)

Tom Cruise

Jenna Elfman

Doug E Fresh

Gloria Gaynor (reformed)

Isaac Hayes

Katie Holmes

Chaka Khan

Juliette Lewis

Charles Manson (reformed)

Priscilla Presley

Lisa Marie Presley

Kelly Preston

Mimi Rogers

Jerry Seinfeld (reformed)

Sharon Stone (reformed)

John Travolta

Van Morrison (reformed)

---

This was the complete text of the item. It was published on Oct. 4, 2006. Some editors suspect that all the names were taken from the Wikipedia article List of Scientologists as it was at that time: status as of Oct. 3, 2006. As can be seen, all the names in the Guardian list were also present in the Wikipedia list at the time, and all the names that have "Reformed" after them in the Guardian list were at the time located in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of the Wikipedia list.

In some editors' minds, this raises the likelihood that using the Guardian list as a reference will be a case of WP:CIRCULAR -- using a source that copied from Wikipedia as a reference for material in Wikipedia.

The Guardian list is cited as a source for a number of entries in List of Scientologists, but Gloria Gaynor's entry is the only one that relies on this reference alone. The Guardian list has also been used as the sole reference to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP. [17]

For reference, the source our List of Scientologists quoted in 2006 to justify Gloria Gaynor's inclusion in the list was the website of Station Avenue Productions, more specifically, this page. It says (spelling errors are in the original):

Gloria was now the undisputed superstar in a world fueled by money, sex and cocaine; her new realities began to collide with her quiet Baptist small town New Jersey upbringing, She began a quest for some spiritual solid ground: it took her through brief associations with Scientology, Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation a1d Jehovah's Witnesses until she had completed 8 circle back to her beginning, In 1982, she became a born-agaIn Christian,

Beyond that, we have so far been unable to find any reliable source identifying Gloria Gaynor as a Scientologist, or former Scientologist.

The question is: Are the above Guardian list of names and/or the Station Avenue Productions website sufficiently reliable sources per WP:BLP to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP, and in List of Scientologists? Previous discussions on the article talk page are here and here. What are editors' views? --JN466 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One possibly circular reference plus an unreliable source seems weak by BLP standards. However, three other references are cited on the internet. The Daily Telegraph 17.7.1993 (allegedly: can anybody check?), Berliner Zeitung 11.11.1995 (checked: Anders als in der Musik hatte die baptistisch erzogene Sängerin alle paar Jahre einen neuen Gott getestet: Von Scientology, Buddhismus, Katholizismus, Transzendentaler Meditation bis zu den Zeugen Jehovas. - see Ressort: Kultur - Die Disko-Queen hat überlebt) and The Scotsman 9.4.1996 (allegedly: can anybody check?) AJRG (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this is a circular reference. As I gather, that's just speculation. If it's not circular, then the Guardian is generally considered a reliable source. If Gaynor has been involved in such myriad movements/faiths as "Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation and Jehovah's Witnesses", then involvement in Scientology is not an exceptional claim. That said, if being a Scientologist or former Scientologist isn't an important part of her life then a related category is probably unnecessary. Categories, especially those for religions, shouldn't be applied to those with only slight involvements.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to political topics, where you are free to use categories as widely as possible in order to impute guilt by association. Can I get an Amen? Erinye (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't look robust enough to me to use to say that Gaynor is a Scientologist. With BLPs, err on the side of caution. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to back up this spurious assertion that The Guardian is a "circular" source. However, Cla68 (talk · contribs) is most certainly correct. I will do some further research, and add additional sources to the entry, in addition to the source, The Guardian. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added two additional sources. Still in process of research for further sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes "former Scientologist" an good description. What are the criteria for inclusion? Reading a Ron Hubbard novel? See Scientology#Membership statistics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some reliable sources commenting on Gaynor's interest in Scientology, that is very useful. I tend to agree though that applying a "Former Scientologist" category to her BLP seems undue. By that token, given the sources we have, Gaynor should also be categorised as a former Buddhist, a former Muslim, a former Catholic, a former secular humanist, a former TM practitioner, a former Hare Krishna follower, and a former Jehovah's Witness. She says in her book, "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology", so perhaps she did a Scientology course, but we can't even say that with confidence from the sources currently on the table. For all we know, she may have just read a book by Hubbard and visited a Celebrity Center, and there is no evidence that she ever identified as a Scientologist (or a member of any of the other religions she looked into). In my view, the Guardian "Listed Scientologists" piece falls short of BLP standards, just because of what it is: a bare list of names, presented as a "diversion", and likely copied from us. --JN466 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no evidence given backing up this spurious claim (no matter how many times it is desperately repeated ad infinitum) that the source is "likely copied from us..." -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is that the Guardian list contains not a single entry that wasn't in our list 4 years ago, and that every single one of the entries marked "reformed" in the Guardian was in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of our article 4 years ago. That, combined with the fact that it is just a fun snippet in the Guardian's tabloid supplement, next to crosswords, TV programmes and the like, called "Listed Scientologists" without saying where these names were listed, is highly suggestive, and in my view fails Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. It is simply not a first-rate source, and for something like this we should do better; indeed, you've already identified a far superior source, i.e. her autobiography. Why hold on to this one? Just because it is the only one to call her "a Scientologist"? We don't need it. --JN466 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

so your argument is that when you have two lists that list scientologists, and the names on the significantly smaller list all appear on the list four times it size, that the larger list has to be the source for the smaller list? if you have additional evidence for this claim be my guest but this is one weak argument.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), that is indeed an extremely weak and spurious argument. -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be labeling people as things they say thay are not especially in weakly cited claims. If it was a strong claim there would not be these good faith doubts. There appears to be no evidence at all that she was a follower of this religion, and she should be removed. The Guardian cite is of no value at all and shouldn't be used to label people like that. The whole idea that some scientologist said anyone who ever came to a meeting is a scientologist it laughable and of course is nothing more than a christian priest saying anyone who is baptized in a Christian. We should allow people the freedom to express their own position especially when some people would see attachment to this group as a negative issue.Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • We should be very careful with labels, particularly those that may be seen as derogatory. In my opinion, being on the Guardian list is not enough for inclusion on the Wiki list. Other supporting sources are needed.Caution is needed here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We have many similar lists, including List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, that use comparable sources. What is it about the Guardian article that makes it insufficient for this purpose?   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

we now have multiple WP:RS including the guardian which is a WP:RS and not circular unless anyone...anyone at all can come up with more evidence than the personal speculation that is the only support for this claim so far. so it is not a simple matter of labeling a person, but rather supporting WP:V which is the touchstone for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The point, Coffeepusher, is that we have so far been unable to find other sources calling the singer Gloria Gaynor a "former Scientologist", or "reformed Scientologist". We have good sources now saying that say she "tried" or "looked into" almost a dozen religions, including Scientology, but that is not the same as being, or having been, a member of each of those. Would you argue we should describe her as a former muslim based on these sources? The only sources we have describing her as a former member of Scientology are our own Wikipedia article from 4 years ago, and that Guardian list of names. I honestly don't appreciate editors insisting on listing a notable person as a former member of this controversial religion based on such flimsy evidence, when BLP asks us to look for top-class sourcing for controversial claims. --JN466 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism and Islam are also controversial religions. I'm not aware of any specific controversy about Gaynor's religious path. The only controversy about this claim seems to be on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would be equally inappropriate to describe her as a former muslim, or a former catholic, based on the sources we have. We should have good, strong, reliable sources characterising her as a "former member" of Scientology (or any other religion). Otherwise, the only place where she is described as such will be Wikipedia, and an otherwise non-notable snippet in a Guardian supplement. [18] [19] [20] [21] --JN466 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should split her into a sublist - "Dabblers". ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to have high standards when it comes to BLPs, erring on the side of caution. We shouldn't be labeling people as aderents of a religion unless it is really clear in the sources. If someone suggests that a person shouldn't be labled unless they have confirmed themselves, that seems ok to me. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gloria Gaynor to a section for "dabblers" would be more accurate, given present sources. :) But adding a section for "dabblers", in addition to the section for "course participants" that we already have ("Individuals who have taken Scientology courses, but have not been identified in secondary sources as Scientologists or former Scientologists"), is a bridge too far. I appreciate Scientology gets people really excited, not to say obsessed, but we have to stop somewhere. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asserting that Gaynor is obsessed with Scientology. As for WP editors, let's not start casting stones.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the WP:BLP only asks for self conformation in cases of categories because catagories are unable to provide contextualization, otherwise it is pretty clear that WP:V is the standard. While I appreciate that people are questioning the guardian list, the fact is that of the 20 or so names on the list only 1 is being contested...so it appears to be a damn good "list of scientologists" which it is what it is being used for. of all the technicalities that people are trying to discredit this list with, the one thing that should be pointed out is that the guardian actually produced an accurate list of scientologists or former scientologists. In addition to the Guardian list, there are many other WP:RS that talk about her taking courses and affiliating with scientology among other religions. So I think that we have WP:V covered in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are these sources that talk about her taking courses? The sources we are currently citing aren't positive on that. Haden says, "Gaynor worked her way though Scientology, transcendental meditation, and Buddhism". (Cirt, in inimitable style, chooses to quote just the snippet "worked her way through Scientology" from that sentence.) Gaynor herself says, "I was looking into different religions: Secular Humanism, Buddhism, Islam, and transcendental meditation. I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." If there are sources saying she did Scientology courses, we can add her to our list of "course participants", but then we need to cite those sources. And trying a course is not the same as becoming a member. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself to be an inclusionist, but I wonder why we would care to give information on people who have "dabbled" in Scientology or any other religion, unless it had provided some context to other events or ideas in their lives. I definitely don't understand why we would have a category for people who have "associated" or "dabbled" in Scientology. Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) the reason is that if there are sources that claim she is a scientologist, we are trying to bring all the sources together so that the readers can actually read the evidence. this will avoid edit wars where people add her because they have a reliable varifiable source which claims that she is a scientologist, and other editors remove her to keep the label off. if there is a reliable verifiable source that has her labeled as a scientologist, and other sources back that up then instead of censoring that source out we should bring it together with the other sources not in WP:SYNTH but so that the reader can see all the evidence and get a complete picture. this isn't a category it is a list, it doesn't appear on that person's page, people only see it if they are looking for a list of scientologists and the sources are elaborated on and provided to the reader.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, Coffeepusher. But apart from Wikipedia and that Guardian list of names, we don't have any sources that say she is, or was, a Scientologist, or a member of the Church of Scientology, and that is what we are currently describing her as. We have sources saying she "tried" or "looked into" nearly a dozen religions and religious movements, Scientology among them, but that's it. We are putting the cart in front of the horse. --JN466 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But the Guardian is a reliable source which does describe her as a scientologist (reformed), or former scientologist according to our list's classification. This negates her inclusion into the "course participants" section which qualifies that they took courses but have not been identified in secondary sources as scientologists, and there is no secondary source disputing this classification. The former member section of this list does not have a minimum time of association or degree of association prerequisite, or even a minimum number of sources necessary but rather follows the WP:BLP and WP:V suggestions and allows the secondary sources to stand as is avoiding WP:SYNTH or editor opinion. There isn't even a confusion between secondary sources, the problem is that one source stated she was a former Scientologist and the other sources stated that she was at one time associated with the church of scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:RS isn't a reason for editors to suspend judgment. Of course The Guardian is a reliable news source, but this was a light-hearted piece of unsigned filler in the G2 supplement, very carefully headed as listed scientologists, and not as scientologists. It was a fun thing for readers to discuss over breakfast. A cartoon would not be a reliable source just because it was published in a serious newspaper. A reliable source is not a reliable source whatever it is doing.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

except it listed scientologists accurately. which makes it a perfect WP:RS for a wikipedia article called "list of scientologists". Now while I could go into a Foucaultian analysis of authorial intent and wikipedia WP:RS guidelines and contrast that with Leff's or Fish's ideals, I don't think that is necessary in this case. no matter what section of the guardian it was in, or what the authorial intent or intended target audience effects were, if it is an accurate list of scientologists (and since all of the members on that list had a history with the church and only one of them appears to be in dispute not because they were not associated with the church but because some editors feel that their level of association doesn't quite qualify them for the sublime degree of scientologists) then it is an excellent WP:RS for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"it listed scientologists accurately". Great, if you can just point us to a source which verifies that claim, we can be done with discussing this source. You're saying it reproduces information available elsewhere? If there is a better source, let's have it. I'm sure you're not suggesting that a poor source magically becomes a reliable source because it happens to be accurate (verifiability not truth, as I'm sure you know).KD Tries Again (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD Tries Again is correct on this, as are all those who are arguing that the Guardian piece is not sufficient sourcing. I think that's pretty obvious. None of the other sources discussed here establish nor even hint in any way, shape, or form that Gloria Gaynor ever was a Scientologist. During a period of her life of spiritual learning and exploration, she looked into a lot of things. Whether the Guardian list is circular referencing or not (though it very likely is, of course) doesn't strike me as particularly interesting - it's a space-filling bit of fluff, not an actual report. Do we imagine that the reporter interviewed a few dozen people to establish facts? No, the list obviously came from a quick look at something... could be Wikipedia, could be earlier news reports. If it's valid, then there should be some actual source to prove it (and so far no one has come up with one).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum:] I'd even go so far as to say that Cirt's original source establishes more than anything else that she was never a Scientologist. In particular, Gaynor says "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." This suggests that she was reading about, studying, investigating many different religions, and evaluating them based on a standard of whether or not they went along with the Bible. These are the words of a Bible-believing Christian seeking a particular spiritual home, not someone who was ever even remotely close to being a scientologist. Cirt, who professes to be a strong BLP defender, is in the wrong here I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that no one's made the case to BLP standards, but special pleading for Bible-believing Christians crosses the line into OR. AJRG (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When all is said and done, it appears that WP ought not label people with what another person has surmised about their associations and beliefs. This applies, IMHO, to far more than just Scientology. John W. Campbell "dabbled" in Dianetics - but he would have been quite affronted to have anyone lable him a Scientologist in any context at all. Millions have attended LDS meetings without becoming Mormons. We well ought to only label people with labels they assume for themselves - we will have far fewer biography problems that way. This strange desire to label persons and groups ill suits the project in general. Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

• Coffeepusher has removed the Gaynor entry from the list, in line with what appeared to be the consensus view here.
• Pieter Kuiper has removed further instances where the "Listed Scientologists" piece was used as a source.
• Cirt has reintroduced the Guardian's "Listed Scientologists" piece under Further Reading.

How do editors feel about listing the piece under Further reading? I think the consensus view of this discussion here was that it is a questionable source. If so, then per WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, it would not qualify for use in the Further reading section. --JN466 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian list isn't useful for anything and should be removed. Her spiritual journey, however, is notable and sourced from her biography - it should be mentioned in the article. AJRG (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian piece has no reading in it and is not further reading at all, it is just some unqualified list. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose the Gloria Gaynor BLP would be a better place to cover her spiritual journey than the List of Scientologists article. --JN466 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly in her BLP and not in the list of Scientology article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

• Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A contributor brought this up at my talk page, but given some severe time constraints I wanted to list it here in the hopes of attracting some feedback instead of heavily weighing in myself. I'm behind on my copyright cleanup. :) The issue:

• Does the "Personal life" section of the article on Mel Gibson focus too heavily on the negative, in presentation and perhaps in depth of coverage?

Please see Talk:Mel Gibson#Allegation of... and help address these concerns if you are able. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I already cleanup it up to some extent, so it's not as bad as it was. Fences&Windows 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It certainly isn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fences and windows did a good job trimming the fat out. Unfortunately since his edits more has been added. I'm sorry but having these sections of 'allegations of' whatever only lets editors bloat things up again. The new section added 'Allegations of sexism and domestic violence' is for the most part already mentioned in the section titled 'Family'. If you read that section it reads and I quote, "The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has launched a domestic violence investigation against Gibson.[62][63] Gibson has filed for a restraining order against Grigorieva to prevent her speaking publicly about the case.[64][65]" Why is there a need for another whole section? Wikipedia isn't a rags sheet and it doesn't need sections like this. The other sections are also addressed again in other articles. Braveheart#Accusations of anti-gay depictions, The Passion of the Christ#Allegations of anti-Semitism and Mel Gibson DUI incident. I think just looking at his main article which is Mel Gibson you can see that there is way too much undo weight given to his misbehaviors. I agree that he is wrong in his thought process about things but should this article be full of allegations of this or allegatons of that? I would really appreciate help from any editors who are interested especially those who really know biographies of living people policies since RL isn't allowing me the proper time to actually do this myself. Thanks for your attentions and any help I may get with this article, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Going to take a look now, hope i can be of help mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The tabloid type commentry and the allegations could sure use trimming a bit. Whole sections are really in need of a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is also worth noting that the coverage has gone well past the tabloids and into mainstream reliable sources at this point. For example, the first page of today's Los Angeles Times Calendar section has two articles about Gibson's troubles, one entitled "Gibson scandal could doom his movie career"[22][23]. --21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has been the target of myriad items the purpose of which is to bash Mel Gibson. The more that is added, the worse the violation of WP:BLP. At present the content being added takes the form of "allegations" as such is termed in even reliable sources, all based on the tape that Grigorieva "allegedly" didn't release. This is a serious issue, as far as I'm concerned. My view is that anything that is based on "alleged" should not be a part of this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Roach

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

• Article is repeatedly edited to add gossip about Michael Roach substantiated by a single gossip column in the New York Post. Gossip column in question quotes extensively from a single unnamed source, as well as making claims of the form "Geshe Michael has been seen wearing ..." without saying who saw this. The material is clearly intended to be salacious, and does not meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Attempts to write a more balanced version of the "controversy" section in this article have been repeatedly reverted by two individuals. Other paragraphs in the article refer to a New York Times article from 2008 which is fairly balanced, but selectively quote from the article so as to present a non-neutral viewpoint. I am a student of Geshe Michael's, thus probably can't be considered neutral myself, but I am really trying to do the right thing here, not simply pretend that there is no controversy. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I appear to have gotten logged out before I submitted that edit. It was I who added this section on Michael Roach. Abhayakara (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not just the NY Post that is carrying recent stories relating to Michael Roach, see [24], [25]. Because there are so many reliable sources, BLP concerns about poorly sourced material do not apply. Johnfos (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

John, the two sources you list are both based on the New York Post article: one quotes from it, and the other reproduces it. One of these sources is a quotation service, not even a newspaper. I honestly don't know what the other source is--it looks like it might be a weekly paper in Hawaii. But since both articles are directly based on the New York Post article, you can't say that the claim you are making is multiply sourced, and it is absurd to claim that "there are so many reliable sources [that] BLP concerns [...] do not apply." Abhayakara (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Post is an RS. But, the consensus generally is, is that it is too much of a tabloid, and it should not be used for contentious BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the Post is an RS. Also, when other papers report that the Post reported x, that is an indicator that it is appropriate for us to do the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the New York Post is, in this case, a reliable source for a BLP article. This article cited is not really an in-depth article, but more like a blog post. It also allows comments, so linking to it may also be a potential liability issue. The information it adds to the article is negligable. What the subject is currently wearing is simply not significant, especially as this is a more of a "seen about town" kind of blog-like post, even the author may not know how often the subject wears a suit vs. robes. It's pretty much unreliable trivia. Yworo (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Page Six magazine article, however, seems fine to me. It seems to cover everything in the sentence that needs supporting, and the NYP article was clearly just a blurb based on it. Why link to both? Yworo (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramiro Helmeyer

Ramiro Helmeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is currently mostly blanked, but for BLP reasons I'm hesitant to restore it. The article as it was before the near-blanking is pretty savage to the guy. It *is* sourced, though most of the sources are in Spanish, and thus I'm unable to confirm what they say. Of the ones in English, two make no mention of the guy, and the third makes passing references that do confirm that some of the article may be correct, but it, by itself, is far from sourcing for everything in the article. So could I please get someone with the ability to read Spanish to assist in validating whether the sources so support the pre-blanking article? If so, then it likely can be restored. If not, then it may need a major BLP pruning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it was created as an attack type article. Perhaps it is better prodded. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PROD has been placed on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It has already been PRODed in the past and therefore needs to go to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fergie Olver

There is a pretty serious issue around this article that has been going on for a few months. Olver is a Canadian broadcaster. He hosted a children's game show in the early 1980s. His onscreen interaction with female contestants on the show has attracted some online interest on youtube and the blogosphere. There has been some coverage in legitimate sources, such as Toronto Life magazine which has commented on the internet phenomenon, such as it is. I am not convinced that the information belongs in the article at all as this has been a fairly recent thing and there is no evidence that there will be lasting notability. As it is, the article is attracting some IP and new account traffic which clearly violates WP:BLP and can be reverted. However, some established editors have included the sourced info. We've edited the section to a fairly workable version, however I am still not convinced that this does not violate WP:SYNTH in that there are some legitimate sources and there is a bit of an internet phenomenon at the moment, but including the info is a bit of a stretch as it is implying certain things about Oliver that are potentially libelous. In short, his interaction with young female contestants appears odd but given the context of the time it is more like someone trying to be cute and flirtatious for the camera. As I said, the obvious violation can be and have been reverted but the larger issue is the appropriateness of the main text. It has been discussed on the talk page but I feel some more input is necessary at this point. This information is also in the article Just Like Mom, the game show in question. You can find it easily on youtube and see it for yourself. freshacconci talktalk 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the section. Full explanation on talk page but essentially this was just bad implications from opinion type sources. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Biographies should include both the pleasant and unpleasant as long as its verifiable and relevant. This section is well referenced in the article with reliable sources such as Macleans, Toronto Life magazine, the New York Post and an AOL new service. Not including this side of this man would leave the biography incomplete. It happened, it was widely reacted to in the press so it is appropriate to include here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Content is under discussion Radio fan and has been removed as controversial please don't reinsert it without support. I support its removal as tabloid titillation that says more about the changing opinions of society and press reporting than it does about the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it out until the discussion here is complete as this is a BLP question but contend that this information is far beyond tabloid gossip if just based on the breadth of coverage it has received.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pure titillation and actually nothing to do with him or his life story. Perhaps add it to changing opinions in society or something like that. Basically blogs and the lower aspects of the press and worse on utube have started speculating that because he used to kiss young girls on his show 25 years ago that he is a pervert (and worse) its not the type of quality content we should be wanting to add to our BLP articles, some users would do well to actually stop reading tabloid reports and pick up an encyclopedia and see the type of issues in someones life that are worthy of adding to a life story as anyone who thinks this is that type of content belongs here is mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Video montages of the original show received attention in 2010 due to his interaction with young female contestants. The videos depicted him kissing young girls and asking them for a kiss. Olver's actions were called "unbearably creepy" and "pervy."[1][2][3][4][5]

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/04/19/latest-viral-video-creepy-canadian-game-show-host-fergie-olver

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/15/for-all-you-fergie-oliver-fans-across-the-world

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/04/watch_an_unbearably_creepy_mon.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/mindless_minute_today_secret_word_AL4Zkoehe7frExtiJg1bHI

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/hype/pretty-young-things/2010/04/15/watch-a-game-show-host-get-to-first-base-with-children

I think we may be reading more into it that we should, especially for a BLP article. The references above label it as "creepy" but make no accusations of anything else. Accusations of him being a "pervert (and worse)" are pretty serious. Where are you seeing that in either the article or any of the references?--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry radio fan I know you are attached to this content as you have added it repeatedly but it is rubbish and doesn't belong in a wikipedia BLP, it is still in the moms and dads tv prograsm so at least you can be happy for that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be creepy if it weren't suggestive of perversion? If you don't suspect perverted motivations then it's innocuous, not creepy. — e. ripley\^talk 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering considering the quality of the reporting about it and the fact that it is about a living person even if it is not in an actual BLP, should be alowed to stay in the Just_Like_Mom article? A look through the edit history of that article you will see the much worse pedophile accusations and additional opinionated content that has been added and removed there. That article and this one need at least semi protection, I have removed it from Just like Mum as well, it is the same content, and requested semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy

Halevy appears to be a barely notable fitness trainer. Most of the editing to the article has been done by WP:SPAs. As a result, the article contains a great deal of poorly sourced and unsourced information. The article is often used as a battleground between fans and his detractors. I think the article should be trimmed to a near stub, unless much better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to be a bit fluffy and promotional, with a dash of COI thrown in, basically the gentleman is a personal trainer and certified fitness coach in Manhattan. and could well be not very wiki notable with a few little mentions in fitness sections and lower grade write ups. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)