Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:40, 26 March 2012

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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.

Sumunumus

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

Sumunumus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wk36963 (talk · contribs)
Sumunumus (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hurt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please take a look. This article seems to be BLP, quite possibly an autobiography, of James Maurice Hurt, Jr. I recommended a move to some form of his name as title. I wrote a longer explanation of my concerns on the talkpage, but ran into "edit conflict" when waxing expansive here. The article is quite informative, if somewhat unencyclopedic, tending to laundry-list style and pamphleteering, liner-note style, but when I tried some minor copyedits a month ago, they were immediately reverted. This seems to be a case of a single author jealously guarding "their" article from anyone else's input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.10 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious attention. First of all, its creator, Wk36963, had redirected both their user page and their user talk page to the article and its talk page [1], [2]. I've corrected that, but now find that there is a duplicate of the article at User:Sumunumus. Wk36963 stopped editing on January 3, 2012. Sumunumus registered their account the same day and with their first edit copied the article to their user page. I've tagged it for multiple issues. Its style is completely unencyclopedic. It is full of personal details which are unpublished anywhere. It has no real sources, just external links to videos and trivial mentions, although there is much better material out there to source at least some of this. Note that the YouTube uploader of the linked videos is "sumunumus". Other than that, there is no indication whatsoever as to why this article should be titled "Sumunumus". I'm going to move it to the name he is professionally known by, "James Hurt". Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what happened. From this edit summary: "moved User:Wk36963 to Sumunumus: Starting a new user page", it's possible that this was inadvertantly moved into article space, i.e. Sumunumus, rather than to User:Sumunumus. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed deletion as an entirely unsourced BLP. Verbose promotion of a non-notable individual. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was removed by someone who found "reliable sources" that are clearly not substantially about the subject, except for an interview, which can never serve as a yardstick for notability. I removed the unsourced autobiographical drivel because it was overly promotional, quite WP:UNDUE (chronicling high school and college achievements not covered by anyone anywhere), and involved claims about living and dead third parties. This article should probably be taken to AfD, but I'd like input from other BLPN regulars before I proceed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 18:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh

Does it violate BLP to describe this individual as antifeminist, sourced to Men & Masculinities (ABC-CLIO), Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences (Purdue University Press), American Culture in the 1990s (Edinburgh University Press), Listening In (University of Minnesota Press), ..., ...? User:Arzel claims that it's a BLP violation, but I pointed out that BLP specifically and repeatedly talks about unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, not any information about living people with which a user may personally disagree, and that these academic sources (in addition to the news and mass-market sources also available) are thus more than adequate. Arzel prefers "critic of feminism," which does not seem to appear in any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - such a description is almost certainly an opinion and, as such, citable only as the opinion of the person holding it. Second - your first source ("The Piano ...") is an opinion piece in the first place, and only makes the claim as a parenthetical aside - not a specific claim of the author. The second source makes a parenthetical assertion about a "typical anti-feminist tirade" which is clearly "opinion" and also clearly not a specific claim about Limbaugh. The third source is even more clearly an opinion piece - calling Limbaugh a "male hysteric" which I doubt would pass muster as a claim in any BLP. Thus we have clearly opinion pieces being cited as though they were facts - which is contrary to WP:BLP ab initio. Just as we can not call Limbaugh an "obnoxious bigot" just because someone in Worcester called him one [3]. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources again and then retract your false claim that they are opinion pieces. It's really not very collegial to waste people's time by making these sorts of claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your "false claim" that I did not read the "sources." If one can not note that they are stating opinion and not fact there is little reason for this noticeboard to exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When "opinions" are stated by academic source after academic source after academic source (after news source after mass-market source), we commonly treat them as "facts." Unless it's also "just an opinion" that, I don't know, Barack Obama is liberal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama called his mom an "unreconstructed liberal" (in "The Audacity of Hope") but has not self-identified as "liberal." With his sometimes contradictory stances, I suspect that the simple term would vastly over-simplify his positions. I fully think he viewed "Obamacare" as a pragmatic solution to the medical cost problem, rather than as an ideological solution thereto. Collect (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use your "academic source" to say "Limbaugh is a 'male hysteric'" - which I quite suggest is not a "fact" but an "opinion." Or the Worcester Telegram to say "Limbaugh is 'an obnoxious bigot'". I suggest others can see that such are "opinions" and only "opinions." BTW, arguing with bearers of bad news does not improve the news they brought <g>. Collect (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the words of a great sage are pertinent here: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". All joking aside, there is a preponderance of reliable sources which indicate that Limbaugh is, and considers himself to be, an antifeminist. We do have him to thank for the term Feminazi after all. a13ean (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mind is made up <g> - but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. The aim here is to follow WP:BLP to the letter. IIRC "feminazi" is an "extreme or militant feminist" per Merriam-Webster. Opposing "extreme feminism" is not precisely the same as "antifeminist." Use of the term antedates Limbaugh per [4] 4 July 1989 in LA Times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have misunderstood my comment. I could care less about the article and have never edited it, but I do believe that there are sufficient reliable sources to merit a mention in his BLP. I similarly did not claim that he coined the term, but without his popularization of it, it wouldn't be notable. a13ean (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers has been described as a Terrorist by many many reliable sources. Do we label him as such in his article? No. Assume a different deragatory straw man term and see if you feel differently. "Rush Limbaugh, a noted drug abuser, said....." I think it is clear that this is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't call Bill Ayers a "terrorist", but it does correctly state (in the lead) that he founded a "communist revolutionary organization that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings". By way of analogy, it seems reasonable to detail the antifeminist positions Limbaugh has taken over the years—most recently, his stated belief that women interested in insurance coverage of contraception are "sluts" and "prostitutes" who should be compelled to submit footage of their sexual encounters to him as the price of access to contraception. But it's probably unnecessary to use the term "antifeminist" directly, as that would be inflammatory and a matter of "opinion". MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Just the facts ma'am. Lets just stick to the facts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP violation. Funny thing about these discussions -- some people conjure up "BLP violations" out of their own worries that a term like "anti-feminist" is negative, when in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. In any event, if the academic studies in question are not merely voicing an opinion but have some sort of systematic approach to descriptive labels of this sort, then it's perfectly fine to note their use of the term. If it's merely a gratuitous label, then perhaps not -- so it's a matter of assessing how the judgement is being made in their work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its absolutely going to be undue as suggested in the lede as desired by User:Binksternet - diff - especially as its a political position and the articles a biography. Its aggressive labeling in the lede. Whenever you see cite farms like this, Limbaugh is considered as an antifeminist[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] - with opinions presented as if fact you know theres a POV attempting to be asserted. All such attempts as this, to present opinions as if facts and in an undue opinionated partisan way are the worst kind of violations of WP:BLP - and WP:NPOV - This comment, in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. from User:Nomoskedasticity is imo a violation of BLP even on a talkpage. Youreallycan 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing it's just your opinion, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense, he is quite clearly an antifeminist and proud of it. No need to mention the word in the lead we can just note that he has criticized feminism and the women's movement in general. In the article body it is a nobrainer to include it. Perhaps even note that he has been frequently been referred to as a misogynist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - please consider removing your interpretation of the subjects opinions against BLPtalk - He holds views strongly supported in the conservative movement such as ....bla bla is the position to report. Youreallycan 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered it as much as I am going to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, why do you try to prove a negative point by linking to a calm and considered talk page entry from me? You say, "as desired by" me but then you ignore the fact that I proposed putting "antifeminist" in the lead section while developing same in the article body. You then point to Paintedxbird's eight citations in a row as an example of "a POV attempting to be asserted" but I see this instance as the opposite: an easily supported statement that has been opposed by entrenched reactionaries, and in response the "farm" of citations is inserted by Paintedxbird to show how out of touch are the reactionaries. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on making a post which quite proves YRC's point. I would commend you to read WP:NPOV and also WP:TRUTH at this point. And try a glance at WP:PIECE while you are at it. Cheers and have a cup of tea. And refrain from refactoring words of others, and when they complain - follow the advice to undo your refactoring. Collect (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic escapes me. Ciao. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect and Youreallycan in that it violates BLP to use the term 'antifeminist' in the article to label Rush Limbaugh. Rather than forcing one opinion conclusion or another on the Wikipedia article reader, the article needs to be an WP:NPOV account of Limbaugh's life that allows the reader draw their own conclusions, such as whether Limbaugh is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight for that to be a primary descriptor, as Limbaugh is a lot of things. Further, although there is no doubt that he is against feminism, it is a matter of opinion to say whether he is for or against women, or for or against equal rights for women, or whether feminism is the same as equal rights for women. If I read that he was an antifeminist I would take that literally, that he is against feminists, which is no doubt true. He calls them Nazis. But others read that to mean that he is against the underlying goal of feminists to bring about better conditions for women, which is a different thing. Those are all political / personal positions. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP check request

I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Warlow

Resolved

– Issue resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the revival of Phantom of the Opera - Anthony Warlow article - at the Princess Theatre Melbourne, the role of Raoul was played by John Bowles. -- Blair Edgar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.27.213 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone made the above requested change.[5] Also, it's not really a BLPN issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelufar Hedayat

Resolved

– Questionable content oversighted, page watched. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major attention needed in the 'Background' section of Nelufar Hedayat article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.116.132 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Seems to have been resolved and a recent single addition from a New York IP has been oversighted - the user may well return - please add to your watchlist - thanks - Youreallycan 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the article and all's quiet. No BLPN issues since the oversite of the New York IP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Bastianich

Resolved

– BLP vios removed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made to the Personal Life section of the Lidia Bastianich article on 18 February 2012 describe a lawsuit alleging perpetration of slavery. These allegations are unsourced and are potentially libelous. Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lidia_Bastianich&diff=prev&oldid=477596634 chinkleDC (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I have removed them[6]: per WP:BLP policy, you could have done the same thing yourself, but thank you for bringing it to our attention - I've watchlisted the article. As to whether this issue deserves mention in the article if properly sourced, I think we will have to see how it is reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days since Andy's edit and no one has added the BLPN material back in. This BLPN request appears to have been resolved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spencer

Resolved

– BLP improved. Thanks everyone! JFHJr (㊟) 02:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears BLPN OK per Youreallycan and Collect's edits as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muthaura

Resolved

– Article cleaned up. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this article, the language seemed too glorifying of the subject. Checking the history showed large additions in Feb 2012 by user:Pnkoroi, with the majority of the text being WP:COPYVIO from Muthaura's own website http://www.muthaura.co.ke/profile.html . I have rolled back to before this users edits, but there were some actual edits that contained updated news of Muhtauras political career and ongoing trial at the International Criminal Court, however they were unreferenced. Perhaps a more competent editor that myself can fix/update the article? regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any BLPN issues appear to have been resolved via edits and the article appears BLPN OK as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byford

Resolved

– Factual error removed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I was not born in Plymouth. I grew up there. Thanks. Andy Byford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.29.129 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting us to this error. Since one of the sources used in the article makes clear that you grew up there, but specifically doesn't say you were born there, I have fixed this to "grew up in" instead of "was born in".

Incidentally, the article does not currently have a photo of you, because Wikipedia cannot use ordinary press release photos and similar. Do you own the rights to a photo of you that you would be willing to license freely? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Tell you what. If you (or someone who took photos of you) uploads a photo or three (childhood, school, present, for example) to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article, I'll rewrite the article and give it much more detail. If that sounds like it would work for you, please post my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, that is, that such material can be verified by independent reliable sources and conforms to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

No specific actions by a particular editor to report here, but as an "in the news" item with BLP concerns it probably could use some additional eyes (not to mention expansion). VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get extra eyes on the article, perhaps post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to place the article on an admin's watch list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what AN is for. A call for eyes here is a good idea. If vandalism starts happening from multiple sources, consider asking for protection at WP:RPP. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies. I'll help watch. JFHJr (㊟) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, I think relevant BLP issues at hand in any new article centered on homicide include WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:N/CA, and WP:VICTIM/WP:PERP. Right next to these pertinent guidelines is WP:BREAKING. I trust those who volunteer at this noticeboard to know principles, look for problems when asked, and even keep an eye on things overall. While there may not yet be a particular issue stated by the OP, this noticeboard is very much a place to request a watch, and to bring up any issues the talk page doesn't resolve. I also trust the OP or any other editor will bring a more specific issue on this article if one arises. JFHJr (㊟) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen S. Davis

Resolved

– Deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Karen S. Davis until an hour or so ago when I saw the article on her linked from an article I watch. When I arrived at her article, it gave the impression of being amply sourced. Trouble is, all the claimed sources I've so far looked at or attempted to look at have fallen into one or other of the following classes:

impossible to find online (which itself is perfectly acceptable)
obscurely described (so I don't know what's meant by the reference)
with links to pages that don't mention Davis

I've spent enough of my time to form my own impression that this article is a confection of factual claims that, where significant, are unsourced.

A look at its history shows that "Karen S. Davis" is the work of a close-to-SPA. The article cites a letter to the biographee (with no mention of its publication) and in other ways strongly suggests to me that it is actually an autobiography of some kind.

Time and energy willing, I could go through the rest of the links, and I suspect that if I did so I'd delete or question a lot more than the nine or so I've deleted or questioned so far. But I think I've spent more than enough of my own time on this person. Other editors here are most welcome either to continue my work or (better, of course) to demonstrate that my suspicions are unfounded and that this is a person whose significant achievements are reliably sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cusop Dingle kindly did more work on the article, which in turn encouraged me to do more on it. As I looked further into it, my opinion of it did not improve. (Well, it has been worse. Here's how it started.) Other eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary - Is there any particular potential Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violation you are concerned with? I looked at the article and my concern is with all the numerous "citations needed" tags.[8] Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations only for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Overuse of the "citation needed" template can give an impression that factually true statements about living person Karen S. Davis are false or that innocuous statements are instead offensive. Also, what was the basis to conclude that down stream, end of sentence reference didn't support the mid-sentence information or that a reference at the end of sentence #2 doesn't support sentence #1 and sentence #2 or that the reference at the end of sentence #3 doesn't support sentence #1, 2, and 3? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added several of those {{cn}} tags myself, and I am concerned only that the information be verified. In this case the alternative to tagging is immediate deletion, and I am inclined to delete an awful lot of this material as unverified and promotional: if UG is concerned about the impression given, perhaps they would like to do this themselves? I see no evidence currently that this person is notable in any way. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our concern should be with proper sourcing. Statements that appear to individual editors as innocuous might be offensive to the BLP subject; if they are also false (i.e., not verified to be true), then they don't belong in the article. If the person is not notable (with evidence supporting the claims that amount to notability), then the article should be deleted. Really, UzmaGamal, this shouldn't require explanation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is to address particular issues listed in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I agree that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header for this notice board could be improved to clarify that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote WP:BLP. After markup-stripping: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to [...] Wikipedia's three core content policies [of which the second is] Verifiability. I have so far been unable to verify almost any of the content that is specifically about her. I do understand that she has a photobook put out by a publisher of fiction, and a self-published CD, but that's about it. Perhaps you, or somebody else, can do better than I can. WP:BLP also refers the reader to Resolution:Biographies of living people, which states that articles that are overly promotional in tone [...] have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies. This article strikes me as promotional and I invite you or others either to help make it less so or to consider the alternative, more drastic solution. And you are of course free to tell me that a lack of verifiability and the promotional tone are figments of my imagination. -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources". Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed much unsourced material. It was a judgment call what to leave in with tags and what to out-and-out remove. If anything, I should have removed more. I suspect she's barely notable, and our article is mainly an extension of her website.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Ryan

Resolved

– Reviewed for issues. JFHJr (㊟) 05:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the subject of the meme has iteratively redacted information from the meme herself, in clear breach of NPOV. She is relatively unknown and has no notable events associated with her (Redacted), I am left wondering whether the meme has any inherent justification other than listing a representative, adequately done in the listings without any need for a meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.143.24 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you call her a "meme"; nor is the slam (which I've redacted). Nothing particularly wrong with the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Kalisher

Resolved

– Gone for now. JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is cribbed entirely from the subject's personal website, presumably from the subject himself: http://www.kalisher.com/about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.201.140 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of California public officials charged with crimes

- Now nominated for deletion discussion -

I have serious problems with this--in fact, I'm kind of shocked we have this. Not "convicted," but "charged," and there's plenty who are still alive. There has been some discussion on the talk page (and a proposal to move it to that title, "convicted," making the appropriate cuts), and just about the only argument I could find there for this article is "they're public officials." That argument comes from the article's main editor, User:GeorgeLouis. I will notify them of this discussion, but I want to have this discussed here, on this board, because the article's talk page doesn't see a lot of traffic. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've seen this discussion on a similar article, result there was an Afd and bye-bye. The Interior (Talk) 03:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm actually more interested in a kind of "move and trim" operation than deletion, but I'm glad to see that there's precedent. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Support at least the removal of 'charged' individuals, and moving the article to 'convicted public officials'. One is partial to the above precedent, and wonders if such lists constitute a synthesis of original research. Eh, probably no such luck.... 99.156.65.73 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blanked the entire article - it is as gross a violation of WP:BLP as one could imagine: it provides no source other than links to our articles - and we can't cite ourself as a source. How the hell can anyone seriously think this sort of thing is acceptable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on further inspection, it does seem to be providing some sources - including acquittals. In any case, the whole article is a monstrous heap of policy violations. I ask all who give a damn about Wikipedia policy to ensure that the article remains blanked (as WP:BLP will require) until it is deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great deal of angst at the thought that there are no sources, and I would certainly like to know what policy forbids the reporting of facts. I refer you to the pertinent comments on the Talk Page. I might add that this page has been getting more than a hundred hits every day, so it certainly has high interest. I also am offended at the use of cursing in this venue. Thank you very much. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR or indeed any of the numerous other Wikipedia policies this 'article' violates? As for your complaints about cursing, I'll refrain from adding the obvious response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic is pretty high (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/List_of_California_public_officials_charged_with_crimes), but of course if there is any given item that offends WP policy, then I'm sure it can be easily corrected. Sincerely, still your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck has website traffic got to do with violations of policy? WP:BLP policy is entirely clear: we don't compile lists of non-notable individuals because they are involved in crimes - and even less so when they have only been charged - or worse, when the have been acquitted? And since when is the fact that "Supervisor <-redacted, out of common decency->, indicted for rendering and collecting fraudulent claims against the county for road work on Union Avenue" of any relevance to Wikipedia, even if said supervisor hadn't been acquitted? The whole thing stinks of some sort of attempt to portray the California political system as corrupt - through original research. Maybe it is - but we don't engage in primary research ourselves to prove it - particularly if such 'proof' involves dragging those found guilty of nothing whatsoever through the mud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: WP:BLP policy is still violated in this article - given that the AfD is undoubtedly going to close as delete, can I ask an admin to speedy close it to prevent further violations AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this call. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the emergency? The article is going to be deleted in due course, perhaps by SNOW. Somewhere we should make it clear that lists of people accused of things is not a suitable subject for the encyclopedia. BLP isn't chicken little. For goodness sake, please follow process. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what does it matter that some people who were only accused of crimes have their names drawn through the mud for a few more days while the bueuracracy runs its course. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not much matter, the criminal accusations are a matter of public record as it is and we aren't going to diminish or enhance that either way. You've already edit warred to blank the article, and if your latest reversion sticks it isn't even an issue. Not every BLP matter is an emergency requiring us to set off the fire sprinklers and run down the halls screaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done BLP is not currently violated in this list as the list has been blanked. The discussion is not complete and should be allowed to continue its course. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article in question has been blanked and unblanked several times, the fact that at the moment BLP policy isn't being violated seems rather beside the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for allowing the discussion to continue. Once all of the entries were sourced, I do not believe that the list violated BLP or any other policy. In fact, it is the repeated blanking or all or almost all of the article during the AfD that seems to be a violation of WP:DELETE.--Hjal (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, we have evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy - that something is sourced (or at least potentially sourceable) is a necessary requirement for inclusion in an article - but it is never a sufficient one. We can, and do, exclude lots of reliably-sourced material all the time - mostly because it simply isn't encyclopaedic. Wikipedia isn't a repository for everything, and we make decisions on what we include based on a community consensus regarding what this project is supposed to be about - and judging from the AfD discussion, there seems to be little doubt that this list isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Bacharach

Resolved

– Unsourced content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

burt bacharach was not in bruce almighty as stated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.51.201 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he was, I can't find any evidence for it - and there was no citation in the article. I've removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Klugman

Should the below entry be added back:

In 1999, Klugman discussed undergoing surgery to correct erectile dysfunction, where he received a penile implant, with TV Guide. "I'm not ashamed of that. It's a medical thing, a surgery that is done millions of times. But there's all this humorous ridiculing and silliness that goes along with it," he said.

NEWSMAKERS: Pikachu – Misunderstood or Potty-Mouthed?. Hollywood.com (1999-12-31). Retrieved on 2011-07-31.

--George Ho (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Giving things a cursory read, I don't have the impression that passage is of any enduring biographical or encyclopedic significance, though the fact seems pretty readily verifiable. The same can be said for several other passages still in in the current version. Here, the quote in particular lends to undue weight, drawing out discussion but giving no clear meaning to its inclusion. Compare the mentions of Viagra in the Bob Dole BLP for when something like this is more clearly significant (and to the point of quoting). JFHJr (㊟) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To imply, should such content be removed or left as it is? If removed, which ones? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bonhomme

No source is listed regarding any information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.tarnopol (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's terrible, but too old to BLP-PROD. I've reverted to a better version, but obviously sources need to be added. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note the subject appears to be editing this article. I don't think we need WP:COIN, but this may indicate the article needs BLP attention for a bit longer. JFHJr (㊟) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed the article. I removed unsourced claims that were either questionable or of questionable significance. I also gutted the lead because most of it wasn't discussed anywhere. And left a note at talk. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is very unhappy about it. If you're logged into Facebook, look here - he considers it the work of stalkers and is readying to "name and shame". The page's original creator flagged it on my talk page for attention. No actual details of the problematic content as yet, but certainly a serious once-over won't hurt - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on this article for several years after previous complaints, and a few years ago did a full review of the article content (including verifiability etc). I think it is compliant. But it would be very good if somebody else could check again. I did try to work with subject to clarify the errors he felt it contained [9], but no information was ever forthcoming.

For years, the subject has been complaining about the article, errors, privacy intrusions etc, and in fact I recently realized that Jimbo himself courtesy blanked the talkpage back in 2006 for these exact reasons.[10]

I would agree that the behaviour of one editor on this article has been problematic over a long period of time, and also that it could be considered bullying and harassment. I expressed my concerns in this recent thread on ANI [11]. I think a topic ban might be in order, but I guess this is not the place for that.

At the same thread at ANI, other editors questioned whether we should go to AFD again. Hawkins' notability is not totally clear given the paucity of independent sources (he works for the BBC, so those aren't independent), coupled with the subject's longstanding objections to its existence. I am inclined to think that this may be the course to take at this point.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion is the way to go. Just leave the man in peace now, for Christ's sake. --JN466 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few experienced users that have watched the issue unfold have said clearly they don't give a damn about the subjects wishes and that they assert the subject is just upset because they wouldn't let him add what he wanted and that they will support the articles existence till the cows come home - no matter what limited notability the subject has. (I added a bit of poetic license)- I supported deletion then, "Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletion of this bio would be zero." , and I support it now. The deletion discussion from over two years ago is quite revealing - 2009 AFD - The subject is talking on twitter and on his radio show about how the wikipedia article has detrimentally affected his health ... Youreallycan 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain - just explain - if anybody did anything wrong about this article other than adding the month and day of a birthday based on a Twitter post and in apparent contradiction to one of the miscellaneous terms of WP:BLP? Some people make it sound like we had some kind of bully mob on the loose at Wikipedia, not one guy adding a couple of bytes of possibly truthful information. What's the truth? Wnt (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it right; the only issue is that a possibly correct birthday was inserted and the subject does not want that in there. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_(radio_presenter)

Philip Lieberman

Would anyone here have time to have a look at Philip Lieberman and help clean the article up? I came across this when considering adding a citation from one of his books to an article, and I wondered if we had an article on the author of the book I was about to cite. I wouldn't normally bring this here, but I don't have time to do this myself right now and I did notice that the most recent edit (15 March) was by an editor with a single contribution who appears to be the subject of the article (the single edit started "Please change the basic biographical material because what's presently there is incorrect )Philip Lieberman, wikipedia userID Pleiberm"), and then added other material (maybe pasted from his webpage?). It's been sitting there for five days since that edit was made, so it would be nice to get that tidied up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I managed to deal with this myself. Hopefully the article is OK now. Is there a better place (like a WikiProject or noticeboard dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs, as opposed to active disputes) to go to for things like this in future? Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cousens, again

A question for you all: take your pick between this version and this version. Please look carefully at the sources and consider what we consider to be reliable sources for BLPs. Look at the lead and the division into sections and consider what the MOS says. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed the article while this discussion is ongoing. I would like to note the possibility that there is a middle-ground approach which is neither too detailed or too short, is still balanced, and uses sources which are reliable for the specific instances of material they support. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider WP:WEIGHT issues related to the Charles Levy incident section. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're obfuscating. You keep claiming that "there is too much controversy" when I told you that I don't care about how long the controversy is. The problem with the article is not that there is too much controversy: the problem is that there is not enough material that derives from reliable sources to make a decent article long enough to suit your fancy. This version that you produced here, I'm fine with it--though I wonder why you had to choose a non-English reference whose reliability is doubtful, why you couldn't just pick this source or this source, whose authority is unquestionable. But I know why that is: you want the reference that says he is a world-famous guru, the only reference that might be reliable that says he is a world-famous guru. Not the impeccable references that suggest he might be a quack. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have very quickly turned this into a mess of accusations and bad faith. You might not know that I wrote the entire article from scratch. I was the one who researched and wrote the full controversy section. I also included the criticism from Sciencebasedmedicine.org. I argued strongly for the inclusion of the controversy section, over objections from other editors as well as from Cousens' office. So, I think you are getting off on the wrong foot here. There decision to choose rollingstone over phoenix new times was because the content is uncontroversial, and a stub should be uncontroversial. Would you consider trying again to discuss this civilly? Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to respond to loaded questions. BTW, Sciencebasedmedicine.org is also not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either the first version, the stub, or deletion. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Mohnish Bahl (Behl)

- Mohnish Bahl (Behl). Controversies

The controversies surrounding Mr. Mohnish Bahl departure from a TV series has been riddled with gossip by the television news media and carried to the newspapers. Mr. Bahl had posted problems with his back several weeks before the departure and this was confirmed by Ms. Sneha Rajani, VP of of Balaji Telefilms. Regardless of the reasons for leaving a series, libellous content and gossip should not be posted in Wikipedia under the biography of a living person. I have not seen this tab for any other artist posted on Wikipedia. I request that the tab of controversies be removed from Mr. Bahl's Wikipedia biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.4.51 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the controversy section - diff - edit summary, remove - facebook is not a correct reliable location to cite such titillative gossip - Youreallycan 16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Controversies' section maintained a neutral POV. I had cited a news report that appeared in the Bombay Times. The section was removed by User:Youreallycan without gathering consensus for deletion of the section on the article's talk page. I strongly oppose this deletion and request that the action be rolled back and that the user post a dispute notice on the talk page. Centaur81 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please post the reliable citations here that you want to use to support your desired addition so that users can investigate - Youreallycan 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-29/tv/31110036_1_mohnish-behl-source-romantic-scenes Centaur81 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another report which appeared in the Bombay Times print edition on 29 February 2012 of which I cannot post a link here due to technical limitations, can be found by accessing The Times of India ePaper portal http://epaper.timesofindia.com/index.asp or by researching and crosschecking the printed newspaper of 29 February 2012 which can still be easily sourced. Centaur81 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks - the unnamed sources claimed this and that next to the mature dating add doesn't set me on fire as regards quality source. - it says, "the buzz is" - what is that? Gossip, the buzzzz. As your desired addition included the facebook content - and that is not reliable, can you please post what you want to include here for users to investigate. Youreallycan 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 'controversy' did exist, I have felt the need to mention it in the section 'Life and work'. I don't think this is as contentious as issue as is being made out to be. My views have been expressed as non-POV and neutral having cited two different reports in two independent newspapers as well as Mr. Bahl's own stated reason. Since Mr. Bahl hasn't yet been public about the real reason for his exist we assume that he quit due a bad back. This has been included by me in the new paragraph. Centaur81 (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request that before the new paragraph introduced by me is deleted, a dispute/NPOV tag be added to the page or section. Let other editors check for NPOV. Centaur81 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had cited another article from the Deccan Herald http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/showbiz/tv-guide/mohnish-will-be-back-sony-949 which was removed by I don't know who. This can be confirmed if one checks the article's revision history around 2-3 March 2012. Centaur81 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Cortiglia

- Carlos Cortiglia

BLP candidate standing for london mayor 2012 - he as yet appears not notable for his own bio - can someone have a look at the what imo is some kind of undue reporting of a complete non event - le nation a Spanish published an interview in 2003 and thelondonist interpretated the interview and accused him of fighting for Argentina and later retracted http://londonist.com/2011/09/bnp-picks-mayoral-candidate.php - apart from this there isn't even reliable reporting of the non event, and he didn't ever fight for Argentina - it seems totally undue to me - excessive quotations and asserting something unspoken? Youreallycan 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Demjanjuk

A discussion has broken out on the talkpage of this article if Mr. Demjanjuk should be labeled a "Nazi" in the lead (while he was never a Nazi party member) of the article (I think that is not neutral wording and/since articles about similar persons as Mr. Demjanjuk are not labeled "Nazi's" in there leads (which is very neutral)). I would like some outside comments on this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see he was a Nazi - he was a Ukrainian camp guard - Nazi camp guard - and would not even have been allowed into the party - however he has also recently expired and is not a living person so its a bit beyond the scope of this noticeboard. - Nazi has become a catch all meaningless word. Youreallycan 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right on all counts T'oucan. And there's no Nazi like a dead Nazi, is there. But we seem to be stuck with WP:RSs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same RS (like BBC News) who state he was a Ukrainian camp guard also state he was a Nazi.... Nazi has become an all meaningless word indeed.... Which is worrying... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we see in that discussion is a desire among some editors to set aside what is in the sources about him. Ten points for guessing what weight we should give to your own opinions about what makes someone a Nazi. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had always imagined that all the guards at the Treblinka and Sobibor wore a uniform, probably a Nazi uniform. But I guess not. Regardless, for me, he became a Nazi by association, whether he had a little cardboard membership card or not. But my personal opinions count for nothing here. And I suppose it is worrying that the word "Nazi" gets, in some way, diluted by over-use. A kind of paradox. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how careful an Wikipedia editor should be with the word "Nazi". But I am well aware of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. To be honest I am not sure if I would call him a Nazi, that depends if he liked his work (i.o.w. he had antisemitic/Nazistic views) as a guard or not (if he did like it for me he also is a Nazi by association)... But he was silent in is trail about this... So we will never know.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors should be very careful that they are summarizing sources accurately with every edit, especially with something as inflammatory as calling someone a Nazi. Why not say he was a guard at a Nazi death camp? That's accurate and it makes it clear what his affiliation was. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Daniels

Resolved

– Content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had something in there about my pen name of David Daniels. I do have copywrited books out and someone decided that I should be deleated because I am a person. EVERYONE on that listing is a person. What aren't they deleated?????

David Daniels Author), A character in three books © by Bryan Beckmann in 2011. Bryan was born in 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.225.22 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages; hyperlinked articles are listed; where no article yet exists but notability is supported in a separate article, an entry may be added in advance. Dru of Id (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roli Delgado - Black Belt was NOT received in Brazil

Resolved

– BLP issues resolved by contributors. Remove this template and follow up if necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 05:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roli Delgado told me face to face that "I called Mexico after the seminar and they told me I can have my BlackBelt". Roli is not legit, never has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.212.151 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the almost complete lack of cited sources in the article, you could be right - but we are supposed to base articles on independent published reliable sources, rather than statements of contributors. On the other hand, without a proper source that says that he does have a black belt, we could legitimately remove it, I suppose. I think I'll need to look into this further - or find someone who knows more about the subject to. Thanks for drawing our attention to the article though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article and found refs for the black belt and other facts.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony_Savo

This entry is based on serious misrepresentations of fact and having it on Wikipedia provides a dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate these detrimental misrepresentations

- It links to Coalition_Fight_Music this company expelled the subject in September of 2011. The seriousness of the matter is recorded in legal action; judgment was held in favor of the party opposing the subject of this biography - "Coalition Fight Music" is a trademarked name registered to an individual not matching this entry - This entry dangerously misrepresents the subject as "CEO" in addition to other titles of authority, it also makes false claims of current involvement with company which do not exist. - Any references listed to support the facts of this entry suggesting any current relationship of the subject and "Coalition Fight Music" or "The Coalition, LLC" are the result of misrepresentations asserted by the source. - A simple check reveals that the source of information posted by the webpages (listed as references) come from "Tony Savo." The references listed for this entry are written by the subject of this entry in violation of the entire policy of Wikipedia governing accuracy of entries. The misrepresentations in the references can be easily traced back to the subject of this entry being the source of the misrepresentations. - Misrepresentations are pervasive throughout the entry, they are the focus of the entry and are in fact the basis of its creation - The misrepresentations made on this page are very serious and very damaging to a legitimate company that has taken great efforts to prevent further damage caused by dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwayEnter (talk • contribs) 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Tony Savo was nominated for deletion by the above editor, but they did only step one. I've completed the nomination and used the above post as a rationale. I posted this there as well: I would recommend that the nominator produce sources that contradict the facts of the article, and thus confirm that the inaccuracies noted (above) are indeed present; It is well and good to question the facts of the matter, but simply contending that they're not accurate (when they appear to be sourced) is usually not be sufficient to justify deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least as of March 3, 2012 Savo was interviewed in a Fat Ninja Media podcast, and on March 4th he was also interviewed on the MMA2Day Show as being from Coalition Fight Music or as being CFM CEO/Producer of Coalition Fight Music. In addition Coalition Fight Music's official website lists Savo as being a member and MMA Pundit has a March 7, 2012 announcement from Coalition Fight Music with Savo taking the lead and a photo of Savo at the recent event. I have been unable to find any online evidence of Savo/Statecyde being sued by Coalition Fight Music/The Coalition, of Savo/Statecyde being publicly enjoined not to claim he's associated with CFM or indeed of any legal action between Savo/Statecyde and CFM. Shearonink (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth

Resolved

– Speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material on Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth page seems to be semi-slanderous or at least under-sourced Jztinfinity (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it was created as an attack page and I've requested speedy deletion (G10).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip DeFranco

Resolved

– Alternate reliable source found, point now moot.--Alizaa2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, an anonymous editor changed the article subject's name, with a ref to a WHOIS report. Following the policies on WP:BLP, I reverted the additions, however another IP added another ref. I'm very skeptical about these edits, I would like other editor's opinions on this. -- Luke (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the subject, I think the current source is alright for his name. Seems that the source is reasonably reliable, and that it's information from an interview. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to consider the subject? The second source (whois record) should be removed as a primary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, well, sometimes a little. I was thinking that when the subject is an apparent youtube phenomenon, the bloggy section of otherwise respectable news reporting is to be expected. Simply to report his name, the source is probably acceptable. I've removed whois. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate source for name has been found, which is an article from The Baltimore Sun, which is reliable. Original whois source removed and now made redundant, so point now moot.--Alizaa2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Wagner

Resolved

– Image replaced. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on the page is not of Paula Wagner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Polk (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? I'm not good at this sort of thing, but, after all, this is Hollywood, and who knows what anyone really looks like?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there is an OTRS ticket that makes the editor's complaint above appear legitimate. In addition, although the appearance is similar, other images don't quite match (see this confirmed image for example). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image you note is the image I saw most often on the web, and it certainly looks more conservative than the image in the article, but I tried to focus on the features and couldn't be sure. Again, I'm bad at this, so I'll let others decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's in doubt - and looking at the picture and the rest of the google returns - it does seem doubtful to me - I have removed it, better out than in unless we are certain its her. - Here is the picture at commons for users to compare with the google search returns.Youreallycan 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my point about Hollywood, the key question is not whether it's her but whether it looks good. Kidding, of course, I agree with your reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood why we don't seem to apply our core policy of verifiability to pictures. Here we read "Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace" (my emphasis). The picture was clearly unsourced, since this is not a reliable source, and contentious. We do not decide by our own discussion what the truth is -- we go by what independent reliable sources say. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me to apply the policy to a challenged image, but I wouldn't want to go so far as to insist on inline sources for all images (I interpret policy to require sources for all assertions in all articles, not just "challenged" assertions).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that images come from reliable sources in the first place (WP:IUP), so it makes no sense to require that they carry a citation. The origin of any image is specified on the file page. FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because IUP doesn't list "reliable source" as a requirement doesn't necessarily mean the encylopedia doesn't require verifiability of anything in an article. The absence of such a requirement in IUP can't trump the statements in the verifiability policy. In practice, of course, we don't "cite" images in articles, but I could easily see someone saying we should. This is all somewhat abstract because the image has been challenged and removed, and we're really just discussing Cusop Dingle's point in a broader sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the policy doesn't explicitly require an RS, it's that it explicitly permits use of images that are not from an RS. The vast majority of our images are user-created or found, appropriately licensed, on the Internet (most usually from Flickr or something else that is not an RS). If there is an error in the description of any of those images, it can only realistically be dealt with by someone noticing it. FormerIP (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[12] appears to confirm it - it links back to Luke Ford (see the youtube link at the bottom) suggesting he is reliable for the claim that this is Paula Wagner. I would say like Bbb23 facially these are the same person ( a little weight difference, eyebrows shaped, hair styled differently) but eyes, nose, mouth and bne structure areidentical. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is disputed here and there is a valid OTRS ticket confirming the disputed nature of the image. If Luke Ford misidentified the subject we should not replicate the error here. Under WP:BLP this is enough to remove the image until it can be confirmed as a true representation of the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comforted to know, that per Stuart, my visual abilities aren't as bad as I thought they were. However, I agree with Ponyo that we must err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way it's her. There's a few other pictures of the mystery woman here. Google for images of Wagner or flick between this picture of Wagner taken a week prior to ours and this one. Case closed, IMO. FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, All in the Family; you're not supposed to add IMO after "case closed" - they're mutually exclusive. :-) Wagner was honored at the same event as the mystery woman. Sure wouuld be nice if there were captions on that website for the mystery woman. Didn't they know we would have this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle yourself! I think you mean Till Death Us Do Part, not that I get the reference you are making.

I guess it would be all round marvellous if we could actually identify our mystery woman and put the picture on her article, but I'm not sure I fancy our chances. FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archie used to say case closed ([13]). Then, when Edith got more assertive in the show, she started using the phrase to Archie, as did Gloria. I've never seen Till Death Us Do Part.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "case closed" is probably an Americanisation of "stands to reason, dunnit?", which is what Alf Garnett used to say. FormerIP (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it's clearly not her - I have nominated the picture for deletion discussion at Commons - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paula_Wagner.JPG - Youreallycan 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Apparently the former image has now been removed from the German Wiki as well. I'm glad to see that we have a photo of the right person now. Lithoderm 03:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronjohn and LoLa Monroe

Just came across this, Ron has been repeatedly adding to the Lola page that she was previously a stripper, his only references being to himself, [14] and a rather questionable youtube video of somebody who is not the subject and which itself makes note of the inaccuracies within the interview. This has apparently going on for a long time: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and a bit of edit warring the last few days. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with Ron, who doesn't seem to get it--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted his latest restoration of the material and left a warning on his Talk page. In addition to violating BLP, he's close to violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has been restoring this content for over 3 years now, don't think 3RR really comes into it. And you have been reverted rather quickly by an anon [20]--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't fret too much, it was just as quickly reverted by yet another editor who watches this page. It'll sort itself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How shocking, the IP was actually Ron, who forgot to log back in before coming to rant on my talk page [21]. I would block this guy myself if I wasn't technically involved, would someone else please do the honours--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This BLP's sourcing looks in poor shape at the moment. There two references are to www.lolamonroe.com and to sandrarosenews.blogspot.co.uk. The first of these redirects to Miss V Inc, a PR company; the second is a personal blog. Neither looks like a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to the blogspot source itself was a gross BLP violation, so I removed it (WP:BLPSPS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS). On a cursory search for references, I quickly found that swaths of the prose were actually WP:COPYVIOs. I retained some information that seemed supported in somewhat reliable sources. The magazine I found, Up and Coming, is blatantly promotional and not acceptable for any claims of significance or notability, but is probably alright to source info on the subject's early life. That said, the bigger claims are still entirely unsourced. JFHJr (㊟) 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angana P. Chatterji

Hi, looking for more eyes on this article, to help with tone, word choice, and citations checking. There have been a couple not-quite-civil comments in the edit summaries and discussions have been somewhat sparse, so I would be happy to have more editors help keep the space constructive. I'm hoping to find others that are familiar with Chatterji's work to help polish up the quality of the article. Pointers and suggestions welcome as well. Thank you. Torren (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ovenden

I have never heard of this person. I think being part of a little known group hardly qualifies. Fom what I can gather on the internet, the book mentioned was privately published.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.92.254 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, an encyclopaedia is precisely for the things you haven't heard of ... but I think the question is Is Emily Ovenden notable? in the Wikipedia sense of notability. That would be a question to discuss on the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. You might like to consult the general notability guidelines and entertainer and creative people special guidelines first. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make it a little quicker, it looks like she has been in a classical music group that sold 0.5 million CDs and a rock group that is less successful but has received reasonably widespread media coverage (and has a WP article). So, she is notable, and she also avoids exclusion under WP:BAND. FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing at Jacques Cheminade

Some IPs and a SPA are pushing 2 unsourced false claims ([22], [23], [24]):

Loans by private individual to candidates are admitted in French presidential campaigns (which is false); they further claim such loans should be interest free (which is precisely why loans are forbidden). See here for example.
An "expert" consulted by a Sunday newspaper has supported Cheminade's claims, when the reported opinion is on civil (i.e. not electoral) law and the European Court of Justice has ruled the matter is not civil.

I have added a reliable source by a specialist in French constitutional law in a peer-reviewed publication with quotes of the rulings. Neutral attention to the matter would be welcome. Thanks, — Racconish^Tk 19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Paid Operatives & Conflict of interest editing

These two essays include claims about living persons (one of whom is a Wikipedia editor in good standing) with quite pointed language, and without reliable sourcing as required for contentious claims about any living person on any page whatsoever on Wikipedia - including userspace, projectspace and mainspace etc. The query is - are "essays" exempt from the absolute requirements of WP:BLP? If not - can s0meone please work on cleaning them up - I only marked one, but clearly most of the named living people are, in fact, living people per BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christoher-Lee dos Santos

Hi,

I am the talent agent representing the Artist Christopher-Lee dos Santos and we have noticed the wiki page dedicated to Christopher-lee dos Santos has numerous false entries regarding our client. We as a talent agency are out to protect our artists best interests and we see that a number of incorrect additions/quotes have been placed on our artist's wiki page.

There is no proof of our client saying any of the quotes on this page and it is deformation of character.

We recommend the page be edited at once.

Thank you for your time,

SA Talent Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAtalentAgency (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Defamation," not deformation. While Dos Santos may have removed many parts of his blog since the Wiki article was created, I do have screen captures from when those statements were made and printed on his blog, so yes, there is proof of his "making those quotes." Statements about "a very biased fan on the loose who is out to exact revenge" are just silly; revenge for what? The article was written in a neutral tone and only includes quotes from critics and Dos Santos himself, and the page also includes quite a bit of other information about his work. Even if those quotes from Dos Santos himself were removed, the reviews are still legitimate as are his quotes given to news sources.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity (2010 South African film) has some of the same issues, and has also been created by User:Bobbyandbeans, just as Christopher-Lee Dos Santos was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAtalentAgency, is DSfilms.blogspot.com Dos Santos's blog? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest box office bombs

Hello! I've been trying to remove claims about living people [25], but I am being reverted by a new user whose main contributions have been to this List of biggest box office bombs. My problem is that the content of the list is not well-defined, so anyone can add any movie to the list if they think it's a bomb and it lost money. To claims like "Eddie Murphy had the biggest contributions to film losses" are completely subjective (not to mention unsourced). But I haven't been able to remove it dispite talk page discussions (see also the discussion at WikiProject Films). Tell me if I'm out of line here; thanks for any comments, or help. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Eddie Murphy had the biggest contribution to film losses than any other actor or person in his entire career. It presents that in this specific list Eddie Murphy appears in more bombs than any other actor, and as a result his contribution in total film losses of the movies found in this list only, is the biggest one. It is just statistical information about the list. Clicklander (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is an assertion about a living person, capable of being read as a criticism of him. WP:BLP mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. This material has been challenged, and hence must be sourced. If it is unsourceable, as seems likely here, then it must be taken out. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once again, there is no critisism of this or any other person in the article! It is pure statistical data. No source is needed for something is in fact already obvious from the list.Clicklander (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that "no source is needed"? WP:BLP is a policy which explicitly states that it must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source is the list itself.Clicklander (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable published source: see the sections WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn´t. But this has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics are summarizing and analyzing what you see on the list. No other additional input is added.Clicklander (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are original research and synthesis. None of this provides any reason to escape the requirements of policy that these statements must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cusop that the statistics prose is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The analysis itself must be sourced, and because it is apparently drawn from the user-made chart, I highly doubt any such source exists. It doesn't matter that the user-made chart has sourced entries; the use of that sample is WP:SYNTH. If anyone has ever published findings on box office bombs in a reliable source — and I suspect several probably exist — those could perhaps support prose along these lines, but probably not what's currently written. JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in order to be synthesis it has to come to some conclusions. I do not see any conclusion here. This section presents nothing more than statistical numbers.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a never-before-published analysis of a data set created on Wikipedia. The statistics and discussion are WP:OR. "Conclusions" are irrelevant. JFHJr (㊟) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't get it. How something can be called "research" with no conclusion??Clicklander (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the rest of us are puzzled by your continuing to maintain that this material is somehow exempt from the policy requirement "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". Are you saying that this is not material? Or that it has not been challenged? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am clear to what I am saying. I never said anything about exemptions. Any information on Wikipedia must have reliable source. If “Statistics” do not have reliable source that means that the list itself does not have reliable source either. Statistics are nothing more than interpretation.Clicklander (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Behring

I just added a reference about a charitable donation that Ken Behring made, after I had noticed an inept addition by an IP editor. In reviewing the article, I am of the opinion that the "Controversies" section may give undue weight to criticism of Behring. Sexual harassment charges were settled out of court, and I think that there is too much attention devoted to criticism of his big game hunting. I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. I am a big fan of the Blackhawk Museum he founded, which displays his donated collection of classic cars, so perhaps I am not neutral on the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Parisen

The personal information section of the article on Jonathan Parisen is full of errors and false information. Parisen was never charged with being intoxicated and he was never given a test to prove whether or not he was in fact intoxicated. Parisen was not on a New York City Subway when the said event took place, it happened on Staten Island which doesn't have a subway. Steven Santiago was nowhere nearParisen when he was hit by the train and it is thought that he was looking to see if his train was coming when he was hit by a train coming in the oppsite direction. Santiago who was given a blood test at the hospital was intoxicated at the time of the event which likely caused his being hit by the train. It is rather disturbing to me that the NY Post is being used as a reference for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.177.152 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Maruri

Eduardo Maruri's article has 2 defamatory articles I would hope to be removed. Since they are biased opinions of an angry soccer club fan. Strictly the onse that talk about Eduardo's Barcelona Sporting Club Presidency and Accused Of Corruption.

I tried editing but seem to be having trouble with the "edit summary" I give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrechi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are adequately sourced, and Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I made a few removals and improvements. - Youreallycan 17:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Butler (private investigator)

I am the Carl Marino that is referenced in the article. Someone continues to change the article, writing libellous material about me. It is probably one of the "PI Moms" that were scorned when they lost their show. They also knew about the illegal activity, but did not come forward to report it as I did. I did not threaten, sabotage, or anything that they keep listing. I also did not, and have not lied about anything from the beginning and the DOJ and FBI stand by me and my actions. I would appreciate it if these people were not allowed to write damaging lies about me. Thanks.

Carl Marino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.147.52 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a large number of news sources for that section. Please demonstrate either that the article does not reflect those sources, or ask those news sources (of which we have no control) for retractions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin, Marijuanna

Im sure many of you are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and its ongoing news story. For several days the article has included that Trayvon was at his fathers house while on suspension from school, which a coulple of (now known to be false) reasons. Today, his parents announced that the reason was a bag containing pot residue. This has been exceptionally widely reported in the media, in relation to the shooting. Some editors (and one admin) have removed this well sourced information, claiming BLP/BDP. BLP itself obviously does not apply as trayvon is dead. BDP I believe does not apply, as the information is exceptionally notable and been reported by practically every RS on the planet, and was originally released by his parents, so the "affects living relatives" portion should not be in force either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few relevant links for reference:

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:RPP
WP:AN
Section on Drmies's talk page

VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the many news sources reporting on this : "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him" http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/pot-blamed-for-trayvon-martins-suspension/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDP clearly does apply; if there was no source for this information, for example, we would absolutely not include it because content related to BLP's (in this case relatives of the deceased) must adhere to WP:BLP. However, I agree with Gaijin that this content is verifiable. The subject matter also does not constitute original research, provided no speculation about a connection between the suspension and shooting incident is included in the article (none was there as of the most recent edit war). That leaves whether it is neutral to include this information (and by extension editorially favorable to do so but that isn't really within the scope of BLPN). To me this content does appear neutral as well, as it relates to the events that occurred in the days before these two people crossed paths. It is critical that no speculation about direct causality between the suspension and the shooting be included in the article per WP:NOR, and as a topic only tangentially related to the subject of the article this probably only rates the ~2 sentences that were already in the article prior to the removal. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely ok with avoiding causality as I dont believe it is needed, but if other editors disagree, wouldnt the above quote make it acceptable since the SYNTH/OR was being done by RS? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sufficient RS sources, and since the source is the family itself, I suspect that it is past the "contentious claim" standard as well. The article contains claims about Zimmermen which have less obvious relevance than these about Trayvon. Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, in the article you link to above, the parents express anger that the information about the suspension was made public. What is the basis for your statement that the info was leaked by the family? VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article. BLP doesn't apply as the subject is deceased. As for BDP, it does say "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." However, since the family has publicly confirmed this, that makes BDP moot. And unfortunately, it appears than an admin is abusing their tools to win a content dispute he's directly involved in.[[26]] This probably needs to go to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 556: / Line 556: @@
 Well sufficient RS sources, and since the source is the family itself, I suspect that it is past the "contentious claim" standard as well.  The article contains claims about Zimmermen which have ''less'' obvious relevance than these about Trayvon. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 :::::Gaijin, in the article you link to above, the parents express anger that the information about the suspension was made public. What is the basis for your statement that the info was leaked by the family? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
+:I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article.  BLP doesn't apply as the subject is deceased.  As for BDP, it does say "''However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy.''"  However, since the family has publicly confirmed this, that makes BDP moot.  And unfortunately, it appears than an admin is abusing their tools to win a content dispute he's directly involved in.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=484069993&oldid=484068616]]  This probably needs to go to ANI.  [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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