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.

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

Catherine D Chatterley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

Douglas Tait (stuntman) - 2nd Review Request

Does this material, recently removed from the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, violate WP:BLPREMOVE and/or WP:NPF? I believe it violates both, and its removal is consistent with both policies. Here's why:

WP:BLPREMOVE calls for: "the immediate removal of contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source", and WP:NPF says: Many Wikipedia articles contains material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". A few editors have argued that since the material is from a RS, it can be used. Again per NPF: "only material relevant to the person's notability" should be included and restraint exercised. Reliable sources are not necessarily relevant. They are excluded unless relevance is established. The only relevance claimed for this contentious material is in this recent Q&A interview:

"Douglas, you have appeared in numerous movies such as 2009’s release of Star Trek, 2003′s Freddy Vs. Jason, to t.v shows like Heroes, and My Name Is Earl. How long have you worked as an actor, and how did you get involved?

Well, I started doing extra work in high school. I knew I wanted to perform, but was clueless about how to make it into a career. I got a job at Universal Studios playing Frankenstein and performing in shows, then got a manager right out of High school.

I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials, which quickly got me in to S.A.G., and I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills. I have been in the business for 15 years, but have only started working consistently for the past 2 years."

From that interview, an editor has argued this "contentious material" is "relevant":

"In December 1990, as a sophomore then playing forward, Tait "broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice" because a teammate's errant shot hit Tait as Tait "was attempting a slam dunk." In January 1992, Tait was suspended for one game for fighting during a game. In December 1992, during his senior year, Tait, then playing guard, was removed from the team for "using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players" at an Alemany High School girls' basketball game. Tait returned to the team later that season."

On the "relevance" of this "contentious material", there is none. The source(s) never say or infer that these events were causative or even influential to Tait's adult professional career as an actor/stuntman/film maker, which is the only thing that would make them relevant to his notability. So they violate both NPF's "exercise restraint" and "include only material relevant to their notability" rules. On the other hand, to claim the source has relevance to his notability that is not clearly stated in the source(s), per BLPREMOVE, is a "conjectural interpretation of a source." And I believe there is little doubt this material is "contentious." Beyond these two policy violations, I believe this material also violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. I welcome input from other editors. The editor who posted this material, also recently posted here, but subsequently removed it prematurely in favor of a RFC on the BLP talk page. But since only a handful of editors who contributed prior responded, it received limited response. While I expect some will also respond here, hopefully in this forum the question will also receive fresh looks from objective eyes who have more experience with BLPs. Thanks! 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon additional review, I now believe this material also violates WP:OR. Specifically the clause regarding a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Regarding synthesis, four separate articles were pasted together to source this "contentious material". By the way, that's also WP:SYNTH. The result of "piling on" or "stacking", selected edits from all those articles, has the effect of "advancing a position" not advanced by any single article in context. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely undue weight but the sources are a pair of articles in the LA Times, a reputable source, so it may be that a single, very neutral, sentence is relevant to the BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on undue. Which is why the current version uses the LA Times source in "a single, very neutral, sentence relevant to the BLP." Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with citing all four LA Times articles and summarizing Tait's suspensions and self-inflcited injury. But ignoring coverage in four LA Times articles of a subject makes no sense. Novaseminary (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

With these edits, I have done so (and cleaned up and flagged some other items). Novaseminary (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a great compromise, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How is restoring 4 contentious edits - which are the very subject of this BLP - "a compromise?" It is not. Regarding the LA Times source, one of its articles is already in the BLP. So the benefit of that source is already there. What would really help reach compromise is if someone would explain how this material is relevant to the subject's notability? Which is required by NPF. It's noteworthy that this deciding question is consistently ignored by editors who favor including it. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9982:6E77:E3FC:7EC8 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The text, as edited by Novaseminary should be reinstated by user 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9982.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? And if Novaseminary's "compromise" isn't WP:SYNTH, then what is? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

IP, the editors are not consistently ignoring policy. They just disagree with you. Since IP did not reinstate the text, I did, but won't do it again to avoid 3RR issues if IP re-reverts. I tried to compromise and think we have a workable version. I hope the IP respects what several (every other) editors have said about this matter here, at RfC, and elsehwere at the article's talk. If this material were poorly sourced or unsourced, I would be the first to remove it, believe me. I hope we can let things rest now. Novaseminary (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not reinstate it. And if you'd like me to withdraw my objection, which is clear, then I'd appreciate answers to my questions asked in good faith. Also explain what exactly is your "compromise" if you've just reinserted the contentious material? Because you seem to believe that my consistently unanswered NPF concerns will just go away without being addressed. They won't. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the root of WP:NPF has been discussed yet. What it comes down to is whether or not Tait can be considered "generally well known" or not. If he is well known, then no further discussion is needed - NPF(which appears to be the heart of the IPs argument against inclusion) does not apply, and prior precedent on other BLP articles of other "well known" individuals shows that events not directly related to the person's source of notability are acceptable for inclusion. But if he is not considered well known, then the discussion should move forward to whether or not the edits are directly relevant to his notability. I'd love to hear what an editor more experienced in BLP matters would take into consideration with regards to someone being "well known" or not, as I have absolutely no clue where to even begin. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Finally, someone besides me has hit the nail on the head. Not only does NPF provide special rules for people "who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article", but it instructs to "include only material relevant to the person's notability". Emphasis not included/bold included. At this point, it's ridiculously straightforward: This material is NOT relevant to the person's notability. That is a proven fact. Therefore it may not be included. And no amount of "claimed consensus" that ignores this basic fact - and/or this policy - changes either the fact or the policy. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

One simple question regarding NPF: If Tait's notability began because of his ability to PLAY a high school basketball player, which we all agree on, then how are ANY occasions where he DID NOT PLAY basketball, from either suspension, injury or other, relevant to his notability? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanfu, all that is relevant here is the application of NPF. NPF does not allow for the immediate removal of well-sourced negative material. It only allows such a change to text that had been in for months subject to consensus--WP:STATUSQUO applies. I will reinsert the compromise, and even try to minimize it some more as an olive branch.

As to the substance of NPF, I do not think Tait is well-known at all, under any definition of the term. In fact, I think he fails WP:NACTOR and that this article should be deleted (again- it was already deleted once, recreated, and AfDed to no consensus the second time). so I do think the material needs to satisfy NPF's relevance requirement. As I have stated ad nauseum, I do think mention of the full picture of Tait's high school basketball career is relevant if that career led directly to his acting and stunt career as Tait himself has claimed. The shortened, summarized version does that.

Novaseminary (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With this edit, I tried to do so. I won't edit again for a while as I am again at three reverts (IP is already at three, so I trust s/he won't either since we all agree BLPREMOVE does not allow for immediate removal of this material...). With the edit I left the self-serving quote from Tait even though I have WP:ABOUTSELF concerns about it (and WP:RS/SPS concerns about the source generally). Tait claims to have been an "All Star". I'm not sure whether he means he was "All State" or some formal designation (I have not been able to find a third-party source verifying as much) or just more colloquially "really good". Regardless, Tait has attributed the quality of his play as leading to his acting opportunities (the specific basis of his "notability", such as it is). Suspensions and injuries are directly related to the quality of his play. Novaseminary (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Novaseminary reliably misinterprets and cherry-picks WP policy to suit his predetermined conclusion. Rather than objectively following policy to whatever conclusion is required. First he states the obvious: "NPF does not allow for the immediate removal of well-sourced negative material." While ignoring that BLPREMOVE does that, if it is a "conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)". Original research is also selectively editing several different sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of the individual sources. It's also WP:SYNTH. But once again, Novaseminary never addresses that. Also in discussing what NPF "does not allow", he conveniently omits what it does. Which is to require that "only material relevant to the person's notability" may be included." The real ad nauseum here, is the number of times Novaseminary has been asked to explain how relevant Tait's non-playing activities are to his actual playing abilities, which are what led to his subsequent notability. But yet again, Novaseminary can never directly answer the question. Novaseminary never even directly addresses the question, let alone answer, because he already knows the answer. The relevance is zero. So instead, he predictably does all that's left for him to do. He makes unsupported and tangential claims about entirely unrelated and inapplicable policies, like WP:STATUSQUO: while ignoring that policy is superseded by WP:MASSRV. Or by rehashing old retreads like false WP:NACTOR attacks that he has been unsuccessfully pushing through 2 failed deletion efforts over the course of almost 2 years, all while always threatening a 3rd deletion attempt. Even though Tait demonstrably achieves each of the 3 tests of NACTOR, when only 1 of 3 needs to be met. Novaseminary then makes a last ditch effort by claiming WP:ABOUTSELF and failing that, just throws out WP:RS and WP:SPS for good measure, in the hope that something/anything will stick. But nothing does. ABOUTSELF doesn't apply because the publication is obviously not "Self-published" by Tait. But even if it were, what Novaseminary doesn't seem to realize is that ABOUTSELF would actually allow it. If Novaseminary wants to make an RS/SRS claim, he should support it, not simply "lob it and leave it". But he doesn't. Since it's just more diversion to keep from answering the pivotal question of relevance that is demanded by NPF. So Jonathanfu is correct. We still don't have an answer to NPF. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:39C6:CCC6:A061:1371 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is nuts. The fact that Douglas Tait was suspended from his high school basketball team twice in two different seasons, and was unable to play due to self-inflcited injury another season, is relevant to how good he was; whether he was actually an "All Star". This is directly relevant to his early acting career, itself directly relevant to the more recent work that IP must think meets ENT. It satisfies NPF. But we do agree that NPF is pivotal. I would further that and say it is the only question relevant (no pun intended) here. I have tried to address it. IP, you obviously disagree with my reasoning, but please do not inaccurately say that I have not addressed or answered the question. Arguing I have not convincingly answered the question might be ok, but your PAs, etc., make it difficult to discuss here. And WP should be fun, afterall.

Speaking of other questions that are settled or are irrelvant, as for BLPREMOVE, IP is the only editor that thinks BLPREMOVE requires or justifies immediate removal. There is no conjecture. Douglas Tait, the stuntman, was suspended twice from his high school basketball team and broke both of his wrists because he hit a wall, twice. Conjecture would be to take those facts established by the LA Times and conclude that Tait was a hot head. But that would be opinion (if a seemingly informed one) and not belong in the article. The neutral facts do. The matter has been posted here. If any admin disagrees and think BLPREMOVE does justify imediate removal, that admin will surely remove the material.

And personal attacks aside, at least get the facts correct, IP. There were not two failed deletion attempts. There was a succesful deletion attempt (proposed by another editor) and a subsequent attempt that failed to reach consensus one way or the other. Thus, there is not even a consensus that this article should exist. If anyone ever AfDs the article, that would be the time to argue for notbility.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Spare us more fake outrage over imaginary personal attacks. Discussing your edit history and past comments is simply recounting the facts. If you have a problem owning those facts, it still doesn't make them personal attacks. So let's retire that distraction tactic once and for all. But I am glad you appear finally willing to address the salient question of NPF, which is what Tait's non-playing activities had to do with his playing abilities, which led to his notability. Your frankly, rather churlish answer was: "The fact that Douglas Tait was suspended from his high school basketball team twice in two different seasons, and was unable to play due to self-inflcited injury another season, is relevant to how good he was." One word response: HOW? You never say. Certainly your sources NEVER say. You only assert. Well, NPF doesn't allow for assertions. What it allows is plainly stated: " include only material relevant to the person's notability". It's so plain, NPF even adds the emphasis to the word "only". Do you need the word "only" defined too, just as you argued about the definition of "contentious" in BLPREMOVE?

But while you're talking about getting the facts straight, it's time you did:

• 1) The February 02, 1992 LA Times article [1] you've fought so strenuously to include is an article divided into 8 sections. The totality of it's mention to Douglas Tait is this blurp: "--teammate Doug Tait was suspended for his role in the fight--". The article wasn't even about Tait, but was about another player. He got only a passing mention. The End.

• 2) The December 08, 1992 LA Times article [2] is also 8 sections long, but reads basically like a digest entry. The section that you find so crucial to Tait's notability is the ONE TIME he is mentioned by name in the article. As follows: "Leading scorer Doug Tait and key reserves Matt Corelli and Mike Corr--all seniors--have been suspended indefinitely by Keller because of their conduct Friday at an Alemany girls' basketball game."

• 3) The December 11, 1992 LA Times article [3] you've had to have included because it is so "relevant to Tait's subsequent notability" is 28 sections long. The totality of its mention of Doug Tait is this: "Center Mike Corr and guard Doug Tait played against Calabasas (0-3), while the third player, guard Mike Corelli, had a prior commitment." The sentence above does say "Three of four Alemany players suspended from the team for using abusive language at a girls' game have been reinstated after one game." Which itself brings up an interesting question for you. Could you explain why your original edit of this article read: "Tait, then playing guard, was removed from the team for "using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players" at an Alemany High School girls' basketball game," to give the appearance that he acted alone and not as one of four other players? Hmmm... Wouldn't you think that omitting that fact, leaves the reader with a very different impression? Most people would.

• 4) I've saved your often referenced "big finish" for last. The December 19, 1990 LA Times article [4]. Your current BLP edit reads: "In December 1990, as a sophomore, Tait missed games because he "broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice".[5] The LA Times article is a 26 section affair and here are all the Tait references, for once in context, and in totality. First it should be noted that of the 26 sections of the article, and Tait's contribution was found so "notable" in the article that he wasn't even mentioned until section 14:

"Temper, temper: Alemany's Doug Tait learned a hard lesson last week when he broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice.

Tait a sophomore forward who is averaging 14 points a game, got upset when a ball shot by a teammate hit him in the face as he was attempting a slam dunk. In frustration, he attacked a nearby wall twice, resulting in a pair of casts that he will wear for the next four weeks.

Tait had emerged as Alemany's third-highest scorer behind Will Burr (21 points a game) and Richard Dice (20.5) through the first five games.

Alemany (4-5) is 1-2 without Tate."

That's it. However it does go on to add this little tidbit:

"Add temper: A tantrum also sidelined Notre Dame's Bob DaCorsi, a 6-foot-4 senior guard who broke his foot when he kicked something near the bench after fouling out against Marshall nearly two weeks ago."

I would also note that Tait's own interview says: "(I) got a manager right out of High school. I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials." [6]. But Novaseminary finds that although Tait didn't even get a manager until after he graduated high school, it's somehow "relevant" to include all the published details of his high school basketball years going back to his sophomore season? It's not relevant at all. It's ridiculous.

But let's take it to it's most logical, illogical conclusion. If that's the standard, then one can reasonably question why Novaseminary also excluded three other LA Times articles that also mention Tait's high school basketball career:

• 5) The January 09, 1992 LA Times article [7] discusses Tait like this: "Alemany's Doug Tait (13 points) ended the bleeding with a three-point basket with 3:48 left, cutting the deficit to 58-55, but it was the last three-point basket the perimeter-happy Indians would record." Sure sounds like an "All-Star" performance. Which would make it relevant to Tait's interview - and subsequent notability. But despite the reliable source, Novaseminary didn't choose to include it.

• 6) Or the February 16, 1991 LA Times article [8] which recounts Tait's exploits like this: "Doug Tait added 18 points, all on three-pointers." Another "All-Star" sounding performance that is well-sourced. That Novaseminary didn't reference.

• 7) Or this December 04, 1991 LA Times article [9], also omitted despite the fact that is both well-sourced and from a reliable source, which noted:

"Junior forward Doug Tait (6-5) spent most of last season on the varsity bench nursing injuries to his hands, wrist, back and ankle. "If we can keep him healthy, he'll be one of our top scorers," Keller said. The rest of the roster is filled with "role players," Keller said." Again, a coach's comment appearing to support Tait's claim of his "All Star" status. But not included by Novaseminary.

And while we're discussing the LA Times and Tait, here are two far more recent mentions of Tait in that source. This special advertising feature: 8)[10]; 9) and this Academy Award winner, who incidentally, WON HIS AWARD for work he did in collaboration with Tait! So much for claims questioning Tait's notability, huh?: [11]

Now I really hope I won't be accused yet again of a personal attack. But am I the only one who sees an editing pattern that the articles with negative material were included by Novaseminary, while the articles with positive material were not? While all come from the exact same "well-sourced" RS? While we were also told that the totality of Tait's basketball "experience" was relevant? Frankly, this edit pattern also extends to the editor's past deletion efforts and AfD comments about this article. It's so blatant, even arguing the point would be redundant. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61E3:EF26:98B2:2C6D (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we should even be discussing relevance at this point. What I thought had been made clear when I opined that WP:NPF is the only policy we should be keeping in mind was that we need to come to a consensus about whether or not Tait is "generally well known". NPF is only relevant if and only if Tait is not considered generally well known. If he is, then precedent shows that you can throw relevance to the winds and throw on all sorts of stuff that would not be considered directly relevant to his source of notability. BLP articles of "generally well known" people allow for practically any reliably sourced content to be added. Arguing about relevance is pointless at this stage when nobody has even begun to discuss whether or not relevance even matters. I see NPF being quoted, cited, thrown all over the place without anyone discussing whether or not Tait qualifies for consideration of NPF. Can we begin there instead of jumping ahead?

Let me start this much needed and much postponed discussion by asking, what the hell does "generally well known" mean? Unlike some of the more clear WP policies, this seems very vague to me. Jonathanfu (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken that we should be discussing Tait's qualifications under NPF. But we can't disassociate relevance from that discussion because, presuming he does qualify under that policy, which I've argued all along, clearly you're correct that means that "only material relevant to the person's notability" should be included. So let's discuss how well known he is. My position is that it's obvious he doesn't reach the level of "household name" recognizability as the Palins, Cruises, Anistons and Knievels. But BPF says that's not required for notability. His recognizability generally lies with the devotees of his film genre: horror film fans, like here, or here or here or stuntmen, like here, creature/monster character film character fans, like here or here, or here , or here, or here, or supporting actors whose body of work is recognizable, like here, here, here, here, here, or here and producers, like here or here , who by definition aren't generally recognizable because they're rarely if ever on screen. As well as those who have seen his work without knowing that was him, as in the creature character he played that helped win make-up artist Barney an Academy Award as seen here, here, here and here.

So clearly just from this short display, because there are literally hundreds more quickly available thru a Google search, Tait's notability isn't legitimately in question (I hope Novaseminary is reading this). But he's only "well known" to those people who knowledgeably follow the kind of work he does. As such it's really impossible to argue other than that NPF applies. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is a threshold issue. Though I did try to indicate above why I thought he is probably not well known. I had been looking at the phrase as necessarily more restrictive than passing Wp:N. And I am more and more convinced he does not meet N (in light of his own admission that he just started "working consistently" since 2009 and in light of the new disclaimers on the Canyon News posts rendering them non-RS). I realize that actually hurts my case for including this material (since finding he is well known would end the analysis rather than cause us to even debate relevance).

Now that you've casued me to look more closely, though, I could see "well known" refering to being well known among particular subsets of people, perhaps those who are familiar with the particular type of notability. Would an article about a chemist meeting WP:ACADEMIC and who is well known among chemists, but not well known outside that group, be subject to NPF limits? In such a case, a properly sourced report of a drunk driving arrest would be out (probably) if "well known" refers to the world at large, but if "well known" refers to chemists, the NPF limits would not apply and the material would be in. But, if the chemist were not well known in the world of chemistry, nor in the world at large, but did squeek by N somehow based on his/her chemistry work, that info would be out regardless. I wonder if Tait was well-known as a high school basketball player? He claims to have been an All Star, whatever that means in this context, so he might have been.

Perhaps this is a question for Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or the question would benefit from a repost here narrowed and more clearly defined than what IP started this with (assuming IP refrains from deleting the material on BLPREMOVE arguments) so other editors are more likely to comment. The rest of NPF focuses us on using good secondary sources (as opposed to primary sources), which we have here, and to avoid repeating defamation, which does not seem to apply either. Maybe in context NPF really only refers to repeating primary sources that might nonetheless be RS and otherwise includable except that the person is not well known (supporting my earlier position that this material should be included either way), especially in light of the discussion in the paraphs preceding NPF and those that follow it. And if IP is so concerned with the well sourced material sullying Tait's name, why has s/he copied far more of it here than was ever in the article, linking to the sources, inevitably making the material more prominent in future internet searches, etc.? It seems the reall purpose might be more in line with keeping Tait WP article usable as a resume of sorts (as the deleted version and earlier version of this article had been). But maybe not.

See my answers above to Jonathanfu regarding Tait's notability. I don't think you'll need to worry about it anymore. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear (so IP does not think I am backing off this assertion), I do still think the material is relevant to whatever notability Tait does have.

Novaseminary (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and with these edits, I added the December 1991 LA Times article IP suggested above. The other two, merely recounting action in two particular games, don't seem worthy of inclusion. Novaseminary (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also taken the time to clean up and add sources and context that were - missing, in prior versions of the article: here, here, here, here, here and here. In a compromise that I'm sure you, and other fair-minded editors will find acceptable, I've keep in the off the court material that you felt was critical to Tait's basketball "experience", but I've also included sorely needed context relevant to his actual basketball playing "experience". This renders BLPREMOVE moot and also solves all NPF concerns.

So I believe this should resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties and recommend we consider this discussion closed. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how adding material appearing in other articles about other incidents makes the formerly objectionable material suddenly ok per NPF (let alone BLPREMOVE), but I'm certainly ok with IP adding that material. With these edits, I cleaned up what IP did to make it more encyclopedia, etc. I also removed mention of Tait missing four weeks of one season. The source only mentioned he had missed much of the season, not four weeks. I wonder how the IP knew this... As for notability, this is not the place, and the sources IP mentioned above are largely not RSs (WP:IMDB, for example). Novaseminary (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The additional material covers Tait's actual playing experience. Not just the narrow area of off court incidents that you think you can exclusively focus on. Either his entire basketball "experience" is relevant under NPF, using your weak argument, or only the playing experience is. But neither option gets you to just the crap you like to swim in. Also I suggest you actually read the source regarding the 4 weeks. It really is interesting... the things you can learn when you read. As for notability, we were actually discussing how "generally well known" a person is, which is not the same thing. But here's someone who's notability we can ALL legitimately question and it's probably time we do Douglas Tait (illustrator). I'll look forward to your entertaining attempt at defending that individual's notability, with no evidence of any, since you created the stub. But yet you apply what is clearly a different standard to continue to question this Tait's overwhelmingly established notability, using a transparent and weak RS excuse as cover. Hmmm... so much for consistency. And if you really want to question photographs because of WP:IMDB? Good luck with that. Not only does the policy not even address them, but logically so, because I'll leave it to you to concoct another laughably bogus rationale for explaining how professionally credited photos are "not generally reliable". 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as it looks like the major parties in this discussion have come to an agreement, unless the IP editor has takes issue with Novaseminary's most recent edits. However, despite the IP editor's arguments, I'm still not sure how "generally well known" is meant to be interpreted. I will be looking for further input on that topic, but on the BLP talkpage as per Novaseminary's suggestion. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect not, as it seems Novaseminary couldn't take yes for an answer and again re-edited the article in a decidedly WP:NPOV way. Seems we have an ongoing project. As for "generally well known", I really don't know what else to tell you regarding further input. I think Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both "generally well known". But I've seen polls where much of America still doesn't know that much about either and what they think they know is often false. So beyond the discussion we've already had, and what WP says, it seems you're going to have to work that out for yourself. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cull

Maybe someone with some knowledge of Canadian politics can have a look at this--the edit history arouses some suspicion. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not knowledgeable on the issues involved but I checked this out and found some good ol', run of the mill, unreliable sources, assorted weasel constructs, original research etc. Now we have to watch for any edit-warring aftershocks. The usual. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Nelson

• Phillip Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity piece. Creator is a new editor, persistently removing maintenance templates. 76.248.149.47

Helmuth Nyborg

Is the Danish press clip used to state that Nyborg "[...] where he was also photographed alongside David Duke and two neo nazis.[ref]http://eugenik.dk/static/pdf/Ekstrabladet03juni2011fax.pdf[/ref]" actually saying that? It seems to say he was photographed alongside the Danish neo-Nazi Daniel Carlsen. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Duke isn't mentioned by name. Translated, the caption reads: "The controversial professor Helmuth Nyborg (second from the left) among his Nazi followers. Among others the Danish Nazi Daniel Carlsen (left)." In the body of the article, one of the other persons in the picture is described as "an American Nazi ideologue". Favonian (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also a striking resemblance between the second guy from right and David Duke. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the sourcing to this page of the organisation mentioned in the relevant section. Nyborg, Duke and also Tomislav Sunić are depicted and credited there. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: The image shown by Extrabladet must've been taken on the same day, note the clothing of Nyborg and Duke. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good find. By the way, it looks like dk:Daniel Carlsen might be notable too. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Stout

Resolved

 – Semi-protected for a month

I'm at 3R on this BLP; an IP is thwarting my attempts to keep this article from becoming (again) a resume. See also my commentary on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a month. Should enable it to be de-peacocked. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I should have asked for semi-protection in the first place, I realize now. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Manuel_A._Torres

This article, as a Biography of a living person, is self serving and lacks credible sources. It creates a strong presumption that it violates the autobiography policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.121.254 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Since you're a new WP:SPA dialing up out of Puerto Rico, it appears that your comment may be politically motivated. If so, this noticeboard is not the best place to discuss the matter. In fact, if you lack WP:NPOV, you shouldn't be discussing it on Wikipedia at all. Qworty (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

O-Bee

Came across the article O-Bee - that seems based on work by supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer. Is this subject even notable? Sounds like guess work - to quote " He is known as the alleged son of Michael Jackson or Janet Jackson". I think deletion is in order - what do others think?Moxy (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If this article is to exist there needs to be notability shown with regard to his work as a musician/actor. The current article reads like some bizarre gossip rag excerpt which is no surprise given some of the sources. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Alain Moka

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

In the above article, there is a passage that would be extremely derogatory if untrue, "As Minister of Health, Moka was disliked by foreign donors, who reportedly characterized him as "a cancer". He was criticized for making little progress in improving the poor state of the health sector after years of civil war, and the European Union demanded repayment of two million euros in aid that Moka was said to have redirected away from its intended use". This sourced to Africa Confidential, which would be a reliable source I suspect, but it is behind a payway and after a cursory search I can find no other sources to back this information. For those with access, ticket:2012100310005582 is relevant but not essential to this issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get access to the Africa Confidential article through Wiley, and it seems that the WP summary is an accurate depiction of what was there. I'm not sure if Africa Confidential should be regarded as a sufficiently reliable source for claims of that strength, but at least the reference does support them. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Charles Djou

On Charles Djou's (Politican in Hawaii) entry it states that Charles Djou served in the Army Reserve's 10th Mountain Division. The 10th Mountain Division is an Active Duty U.S. Army unit and the reserve unit he was deployed with was in support of the 10th Mountain but the 10th Mountain is /not/ a reserve unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.134.36 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've corrected the information. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Suwanda HJ Sugunasiri

I realize that this is not nearly as grave (nor so technical) as the other issues that you resolve on this noticeboard, but the example is so egregious (and so hilarious) that you might want to tackle the problem simply to brighten up your day.

Suwanda HJ Sugunasiri

I offered a few remarks on the "talk" page, but I can hardly do justice to the absurdity of the case. He praises his own accomplishments at a scale beyond credulity or comprehension --and includes mention of every letter-to-the-editor that was carried in any newspaper, praises his wife's cooking, and praises every redeeming characteristic and imaginary accomplishment that he can possibly afford himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep Tong (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you PRODed it. Please fill in a rationale for the PROD form. Also, please see Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion. Worst-case scenario, we can do a re-write. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Now speedily deleted as too promotional in tone.--ukexpat (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf and User talk:Peyuti

A little help please. The editor User talk:Peyuti says she is the subject of the article Naomi Wolf and that this commercial software site is an appropriate source for date of birth. I am particularly sensitive about the DOB in this article because up until a few weeks ago, a particular date was in the article, unsourced. An IP changed the year. Since the information was contested and unsourced, I removed both. Within the article, one of the sources has a statement that "she released X book at age Y". when I did the math, that year would have been different than both the date that had originally been in the article and the date added by the IP. Since there are many contested dates, we need very strong sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to help out with the sourcing, but if she's the subject, perhaps she should bring this up on OTRS. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversial things in the article, but they are all supported by reliable sources. I've issued her a {{uw-ewsoft}} for her persistent edit warring and I'll try my best to explain things to her. If she continues to edit war after the warning, she'll be blocked. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I had provided a link to WP:AUTOPROB thinking that OTRS was mentioned in there, but its not. Is there a better link for this context? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left her another message explaining things and providing an email and link to WP: FEFS. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Diane Nukuri

Diane Nukuri's full name is not accurate on the page heading - the creator of the page did not initially create it properly. Her name is "Diane Nukuri-Johnson" and should be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.jswj (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

All reference links have her as simply "Nukuri", not "Nukuri-Johnson". What is the evidence to the contrary? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Roy Smiles

Another disorganized and woefully undersourced BLP where an IP is more interested in fluffing it up than in making the article conform to our guidelines. I've been trimming stuff, with explanation in the edit summaries, which is summarily restored, a couple of times now, without any kind of sourcing or explanation. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It really should be cut way back to a three or four line stub and list of productions that are verifiable from the single reference.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Which I have now done, but expect to be reverted, so more eyes on this please.--ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein

Hi,
Could somebody who knows more about such things have a look at Bill Lichtenstein, please? The edit history looks very suspicious, dominated by a mixture of SPAs and IPs which geolocate to Massachusetts, plus at least one that seems to be open proxy... I'm not familiar with the topic but there seems to be some recent controversy. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Ralph Drollinger is a jock-turned-minister who made some controversial remarks back in 2004 about women legislators abandoning their families by serving in the legislature; and also had some kind of internal split which lost his ministry most of its affiliates (he says it was "a failed coup attempt"). Our coverage was fairly even-handed, I think, once we blocked the subject and one of his sock-puppets; but a new editor, User:AccuracyInPosting, concerning whom I am trying very hard to AGF, keeps wanting to take out the existing content and put in other stuff that reflects Drollinger's POV only, and covers up the whole male-speaker-of-the-house-wears-an-apron incident entirely. He is also making escalating ad hominem attacks against User:OCNative, whom he accuses of being an agent for Drollinger's enemies (there are accusations of theft as well). I've warned him about NPOV, NPA, AGF, etc., but he's not satisfied because we are being mean to Drollinger. Could I get some fresh eyes? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy in Posting here. There are several new, credible newspaper articles that should inform the ministry section of this article that need to be considered. I have brought those articles to the forefront and so far their inclusion has been rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The URLs that had been posted to the article were incomplete and would not work, but these seem to be the articles AccuracyInPosting wanted to link to: [12], [13]. Zagalejo^^^ 00:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Zagalejo; Since I am new to the Wiki world and don't know how exactly to post the references, in good faith why would you remove them, versus post them up properly? ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs)

I did put one back: [14]. I'm not sure exactly how to incorporate the other one just yet. I'm thinking about it. Zagalejo^^^ 01:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now put both of them back, although I haven't incorporated much information from them yet. I do think it is important that we get things right. It seems to be a complicated story, and I don't feel comfortable rushing into things. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if we cut the ministry section to the absolute bare minimum, at least until there's some closure to the legal issues. Zagalejo^^^ 01:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Zagalejo; The Sac Bee article brings to light that there is a cogent lawsuit going on regarding this whole matter. The judge has ruled to hear Capitol Ministries' counterclaim charges that Drollinger's former staff were actually eavesdropping on him and his wife's computers. Given the controversy over this, it would be the desire of the US District Court (Standard operating procedure for US District Courts) for this whole section to be taken down, lest it taint the jury pool in North Carolina. Thanks for respecting these necessary sensitivities. Once the jury has determined a verdict that should be reflected in this article at that time. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. We do not blank out properly sourced content for the convenience of some lawyer(s) in North Carolina (or North Korea). Do you work for Drollinger? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do think AccuracyInPosting makes some worthwhile points. If we're going to discuss the controversy at all, it is important to at least mention Drollinger's responses to some of the claims. Zagalejo^^^ 01:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike; That is an interesting comment you have made. In your seeming postmodern ideology you deem "sourcing" as preeminent to truth. That is why the Wikipedia idea is flawed on its face. The new source that have now been posted to this article (evidently legitimate sources in your estimation or you would have arbitrarily rejected them) have much to say that is corrective to what is historically and presently alleged in this article to supposedly be "truthful" content. Furthermore you manifest in your words a disregard for the discipline of justice, wherein the tainting of juries through subjective mediums such as Wiki could and do affect the lives of people who are seeking justice. It is too bad you view your free speech rights in such insensitive ways.

Why don't you search the articles that are now posted as sources and pull out the more recent verifiable information that vastly eclipses some of the other views that are evident therein, versus ignoring them so as to reinforce your biases. Do you work for Capitol Commission? I do not work for Drollinger, and the fact that you would ask such a question serves to reveal your premeditated mindset. ----

Bill Kerby bio

I was born in 1937, not 1940. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.2.254 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The only source I can find with Mr. Kerby's birthdate is [15]. This shows the birth year as 1940. Is there a source that shows the 1937 birth year? Sperril (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

John Sall

I have a WP:COI with SAS Institute / JMP (statistical software). I haven't done much COI work for individuals and was wondering if this was a good place to bring attention to my request edit I posted a few weeks ago, asking for feedback on a proposed new version of the article. COIDave (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is correctly showing in the requested edits category, however there is unfortunately a backlog of open requests and it may take a bit longer for the proposed edit to be reviewed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Despite an attempt to freeze and moderate this article, it is again libellous and full of weasel words. Despite previous discussions, (name redacted) again carries out his personal vendetta against Shamir. Please reopen the process of moderation. Kingfisher12 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• What I see is you making a ridiculous edit. Are you also making some kind of socking accusation? Drmies (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite the assertions of the above editor, I have made precisely ONE edit to this article in the past twelve months, to remove an unnecessary citation needed tag. However, his bad faith edits to the article[16] and talk page[17] are unacceptable, and worthy of sanction. RolandR (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but it's too late to block (unless punitively). Kingfisher, if you don't retract this and do something like this again, you will be blocked. Consider this a kind of final (only) warning. Roland, anytime this happens again, let me or another admin know please. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's not too late to stop an SPA whose only mission here seems to be to clean up one person's reputation while besmirching that of an editor here. After another look through this editor's history, it has become clear to me that they are incapable of editing BLPs in a responsible fashion (this includes attempts at outing, commentary on article pages, wild accusations of socking, whitewashing of a BLP in various ways, etc), and I will block them indefinitely. With the standard WP:OFFER of course--but I think any admin will want to look very carefully at the history. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested: from a different discussion comes this edit. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are suggesting that Kingfisher was responsible for that last edit, Drmies. I am certain that he was not. Quitevividrr is an obvious sock of the Runtshit vandal; Kingfisher would appear to have a diametrically opposite standpoint. RolandR (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Thiel

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

Photo posted is irrelevant, and the link below it redirects user to a conspiracy site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.58.106 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and semi-protected the article, as this seems to be a persistent problem coming from multiple IPs. January (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sergei Stanishev

I know nothing about Bulgarian politics. Sergei Stanishev is a Bulgarian politician whose article is chock-a-block with unsourced speculation about his ethnicity and heritage, most of which is contributions by Hurryurgeee. I think it all needs to be deleted back to a version last April before Hurryurgeee and Ceco31 started inserting "possible" origins and other theories. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the area could take a look. Bielle (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Willow Smith

Someone put she is a lesbian it is none of their buisness how could they do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.13.208 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, that was you and it was reverted 7 seconds later by a bot.--ukexpat (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Extensive and detailed sections on LGBT issues and campaign financing now dwarf the rest of the BLP. Would UNDUE be applicable at this point? The two sections alone account for over 1,300 words in the article, which is now twice the size it had been on 18 September, and thrice the size on 14 September, five times the size it had been on 11 September, and fifteen times the size it had been in May before all the political edits appeared. I think this may indcate a problem here, and UNDUE is not even all of the problem. Collect (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Collect would be so kind as to link to the many recent (archived) discussions we have had regarding this BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why over half the BLP is on "controversies"? I would note that you seem aware of the discussions on thin - and the bloating of the article including naming multiple persons who are also living without following WP:BLP suggestions that irrelevant people should not be named all over the place? Frankly, this is blatant silly season stuff at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of the threads on this BLP that have appeared here at BLPN and what seems to happen is that the people who are already in conflict within the article engage in back and forth comments like above and there has not been sufficient participation by the community. That is unfortunate because this article needs the attention of uninvolved editors IMO. I am not familiar with this BLP subject or the dynamics of the editors there but I did look the article over, as a whole and I see a number of red flags:

• Text organized under subjective "subject" headings rather than under chronological headings which are more objective and are used in FA bios like Gerald Ford. Section headings are fertile fields for POV pushing and bias IMO.
• The LGBT Issues section heading for example, is an invitation for the reader to pre-judge the complex issues contained within it.
• Further the LGBT Issues section comprises 50% of the Political Activities section and 25% of the entire article.
• Sources in the LGBT Issues section include three articles by the reporter who is in a public dispute with the BLP subject.
• There's only one source by the BLP subject in that section and it's used to substantiate the subject's critical statements, not to respond to criticism made by others.
• Within the subjective heading called LGBT Issues, there is an attempt to provide information chronologically except when that's inconvenient and in that case info from 2012 is placed at the top along with an editorial sentence (with no source) that begins with the word "However" thereby negating the prior sourced sentence.

I have noticed similar trouble spots in other sections but I'll stop here. I hope some neutral editors decide to put this article on their watch list and participate in talk page discussions there, as this article needs attention. Best to all,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Your 5th point is inaccurate. In addition to this (the one I think you have in mind), there is also this and this. I agree with your observation on "however" -- I have attempted to remove constructions of that sort and will do so again, while requesting that the editors who use them refrain from doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For a different consern, see below at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot_2 GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• "Text organized under subjective "subject" headings rather than under chronological headings which are more objective and are used in FA bios like Gerald Ford. Section headings are fertile fields for POV pushing and bias IMO."

It might make sense for someone like Ford, whose life is largely compartmentalized chronologically by his terms of office, but it doesn't make sense for someone like VanderSloot, whose notability is based on specific accomplishments and issues punctuated by large spans where he didn’t really do anything notable. Each BLP is different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to headings; at least none that I know of.

• "The LGBT Issues section heading for example, is an invitation for the reader to pre-judge the complex issues contained within it."

I don't agree with that broad assertion, but what would be a better heading in your opinion. Gay rights issues? I’m open to suggestions if you have something better in mind.

• "Further the LGBT Issues section comprises 50% of the Political Activities section and 25% of the entire article."

Except it’s not the Political Activities section; it’s the Public Activities section, and it doesn't comprise 25% of the entire article. VanderSloots gay rights run-ins have generated a lot of coverage by numerous sources (and a lot of controversy) over a decade-long period. It’s one of things that he’s most notable for. He's made a point of getting involved in the issues and it has generated significant coverage. That's the consequence of taking controversial public stands.

• Sources in the LGBT Issues section include three articles by the reporter who is in a public dispute with the BLP subject.

Two of the citations was merely the articles by Zuckerman that were the focus of VanderSloot’s public attack and were referred to directly by VanderSloot. They are linked merely as a courtesy to the reader so that the reader can see identify the articles that VanderSloot was referring to. The other was to Zuckerman’s statement that he was outed by VanderSloot, which is backed up by several other sources that stated the same thing, and the citation was added just today because another editor requested additional citations to indicate who it was that claimed that VanderSloot outed Zuckerman. Each of Zuckerman's citation is perfectly reasonable and the citations are not given undue weight overall.

• "There's only one source by the BLP subject in that section and it's used to substantiate the subject's critical statements, not to respond to criticism made by others."

Incorrect. Two of VanderSloot’s original ads were linked[18][19] as well as his response/denial[20] – that’s 3 different citations. It's properly weighted and Vandersloot's denials deserves no more weight than they are given, especially in light of the fact that multiple sources showed that his criticism as grossly flawed, and his charge about shoddy journalism was discounted by the fact that Zuckerman's work received 3 different awards for journalistic excellence.

• "Within the subjective heading called LGBT Issues, there is an attempt to provide information chronologically except when that's inconvenient and in that case info from 2012 is placed at the top along with an editorial sentence (with no source) that begins with the word "However" thereby negating the prior sourced sentence."

A reasonable point. And it’s already been fixed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Clawson

A user keeps inserting a claim that Clawson "suggested that the US government should engineer a false flag event to gain popular support to facilitate a war with Iran." I have pointed out on the talk page that this is a misrepresentation of Clawson's actual statements, but, despite two requests, the IP user has not taken the opportunity to discuss the edit. The user's source is antiwar.com, which is not a WP:RS. GabrielF (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the IP? I don't see anything on the talk page? If they discuss with you and there is no resolution and you could try 3rd opinion or WP:RSN. The source looks weak to me but that's a discussion for another noticeboard. It also seems like undue weight since the article is less than a paragraph long. But those are just my opinions. Try to dialogue with the IP. If they refuse to talk and just edit war, then it becomes a behavioral issue for WP:DRN maybe. I hope that's helpful. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Patrick Clawson. GabrielF (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rob Bickhart

I found this article with two proposed deletion templates on it saying that Mr Bickhart doesn't want particular content in the article. That's not a reason to delete the article, as he appears to easily pass notability guidelines, but could someone take a look at the article and check for WP:BLP-compliance? It does, at first glance, look rather unbalanced, but I don't have the time to trawl through sources at the moment. (And I'd rather not get drawn into the cesspit of domestic US politics) Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm one could argue that the article is, on the whole, on the negative side and that's rarely a good thing. But what coverage there is is reliable, the man had a public position, and did things that made him public. The salary bit is unsavory, but that's probably because it was perceived as unsavory. I wouldn't object to the numbers being scrapped, maybe, or some other tweaks made, but if one accepts half a million dollars in such a public position, well, I'm sure he had worse exposure than this mention in Wikipedia. We don't get paid a dime to produce verified and neutral information about others in our little project. Interesting case, Phil, and an invitation for more input. Collect, are you inclined to comment? Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim Grabowski

Former Green Bay Packers Backup QB. The last line of his bio is untrue and, in fact, libelous. Also, Wikipedia's notice about how to report libelous material misspells libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.214.145 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the line in question. GabrielF (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

The name Brad Stowell is used in the article. I tried to remove the name but my attempt was reverted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=516370578&oldid=516365033.

There are other people named Brad Stowell besides the person referenced in the article, which would be just as good a piece without the exact name of the person involved. See http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=2&q=%22Brad+Stowell%22+-scout+-molester&ql=

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What policy basis is there for suggesting that the names of people should be deleted because of the possible existence of other people with the same name? That argument is so vague it could be applied to tens of thousands of articles at WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh, bad argument or not, that entire section is completely over the top. Too much of it is praise of the investigative journalist in question, there is no need whatsoever to mention the name of the person accused, and it is entirely too long--the references do not, as far as I can tell, bear out that a half a dozen paragraphs should be devoted to this case. I hope that someone else can have a closer look at the section in question and perhaps trim it. As far as I'm concerned, the entire bit could be scrapped, referenced or not, as lending a huge amount of undue weight to a minor issue in the man's biography. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I see now that there already is a section on this BLP. Collect, your observation is brief but to the point and I agree that this seems to be the season for silly stuff, and that the article as a whole is entirely skewed. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Broader issues aside, I'm still not clear on the justification for removing the names. They were mentioned in the various cited sources and by VanderSloot himself. How is it better to say "the camp director" instead of the person's actual name? It's an encyclopedia right? Is there a policy or guideline that you believe justifies removal of the names? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Brad Stowell is a married guy who lives in Saint Croix Falls, Wisconsin.

http://www.facebook.com/brad.stowell.31

He is in the computer software business in Seattle,

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brad-stowell/0/147/ab1

He is a minor league baseball player.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=stowel001bra

He is a lacrosse goalie at Alfred State.

http://www.alfredstate.edu/athletics/lacrosse

He is the owner of a company called Southern Green.

http://jacksonville.citysearch.com/profile/33241908/jacksonville_fl/southern_green.html

To my belief, he is a living person, and more than one, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? There are 19 LinkedIn profiles listed for "John Hinkley",[21] and yet the BLP on Ronald Reagan still mentions John Hinkley by name. There must be 1000s of similar but less notable examples throughout WP. The premise of this argument does not seem to be based on any WP policy or guideline; I don't believe that there is any WP policy/GL dictating that a person can't be named in a BLP because there may exist some other person(s) with the same name. Nonetheless, the full name of the Brad Stowell in question is "Bradley Grant Stowell", so I have simply added that to the article.[22] Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Stowell is not notable by Wikipedia standards. 2. ]]WP:BLP]] states clearly:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Many Wikipedia articles contains material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

This covers some of the salient issues at hand. Stowell is notnotable, is listed for a single reason, and his name is irrelevant to the vanderSloot BLP. BLP applies to Stowell as a living person, and the policy cearly indicates it is up to yo to prove that his name is important in the vanderSloot BLP, that it is "neutral" (WP:NPOV) about him, that it relies on secondary sources (as the material is about Zuckerman's articles, the articles themselves are a primary source here for what Zuckerman wrote, and are insufficient for the claims to be made in Wikipedia's voice as a result). I trust these multiple reasons meet your cavils. BTW, your addition of the middle name is absolutely contrary to WP:BLP as it appears to rely on your "original research" to boot. Zuckerman did not appear to use the middle name. OR in order to violate BLP is not a great idea! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to bury information regarding the activities of a pedophile? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so keen on highlighting this information? --Mollskman (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Grey Revell

• Grey Revell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well here's an interesting one, an autobiography that's been here since early 2006. I've been chatting with the article's subject and author, who's been very obliging regarding the COI, puffery and reliable source issues, and has voluntarily removed some of the unreferenced claims. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Perhaps objective editors can find reliable sources to support notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at talk. I've tried to steer conversations there so that others can readily find conversations regarding edits to the article. There's been no discussion there yet, so I'm inclined to think that's a good forum to continue discussions about the article, and to propose edits. Discussions here should focus on article content that can't be resolved on the talk page. That aside, I agree notability is seriously in question, and I've left a comment on the talk page to that effect, with helpful links.

I also recommend WP:COIN as an alternate forum in case a conflicted editor edits disruptively or unreasonably. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)