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.

Carmel Moore

• Carmel Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I trimmed this article down today, removing unreliable sources (including the sourcing of the subject's birth name to IMDb, no less), but my edits have been reverted with the familiar "that's OK, I know I can override BLP and OR because I put effort into this article" argument. I am honestly finding it hard to care about the bio of a retired pornstar at this point (as I do of fringe topics, barely known rappers and reality TV shows), and I'm afraid I'll overreact and use a button I shouldn't. So here it is, if someone feels they can take it on, that would be great. I'm taking it off my watchlist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have given it a shot.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I also recently took a shot at (maybe less drastically?) editing the article in question here and engaging on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. Some more help might be needed. Guy1890 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Anti-vaccination activists

Looking here, most of the people in this category are not reliably sourced as "anti-vaccination activists" in reliable sources -- one person got in there for a single TV assignment as a correspondent , another in there for questioning the famous "swine flu vaccine" affair, etc. In short -- this category is riddled with bad entries, and all entries there should be vetted, as categories intrinsically make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice that the people fall into that "contentious claim" area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh and one is in there for questioning the use of smallpox vaccines (because of complications observed) in his articles in peer-reviewed journals after smallpox was basically defunct in Europe in the 1970s. Collect (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this as well. In many, if not most instances, the people are not self identifying as anti-vaccine. And in some instances they are denying it. There is no official body that declares whether someone is pro- or ant- vaccine. It appears to be a label invented by people who are activists to disparage or discredit individuals who they disagree with. This seems to fall under investigative journalism that is sensational rather than encyclopedic. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that self-identification is necessary as being anti-vaccination activist/advocate/proponent is not a religious belief or sexual orientation. That said, your comments suggest that maybe this category should be discussed at WP:CfD.- MrX 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Those two categories were spelled out since there repeated discussions about them. But the same can holds true for other topics that are personal ideologies not formal groups that you join or well recognized occupations or hobbies. I agree that WP:Cfd makes sense. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be truth in the case that this category is being misused and several editors have been reinserting it on Robert Sears who supports vaccinations. Apparently "Anti-vaccination activists" applies to vaccination supporters who disagree with CDC vaccination scheduling. Certainly seems like an improper label without context. I find NeilN's comparison to holocaust deniers to be horrifying. NeilN then restored the contentious label during the talk page discussion. This is a BLP issue and I believe the tag should be removed given the additional and now separate BLPN issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And here I starting to have some sympathy for you. First, I restored the cat after checking there was a good source supporting it on the talk page. Since then, more sources have been added and no one else supports your position. Now, as to the holocaust denier change. You wrote:

• "Sears own words and book advocate vaccines - thus he cannot and is not an "anti-vaccinationist". Those "reliable sources" you just labeled are opinions and historically we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology." [1]

I wrote:

• "That's incorrect. We have a plethora of Holocaust deniers who call themselves something else." [2] Followed up by: "He can say he supports vaccinations, just like Holocaust deniers can say they support accurate historical viewpoints. However analysis of their actions and writings may come to a different conclusion." [3]

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would see I was not comparing the two, but putting forth an example to refute your poor and incorrect assertion. Others have as well. So, please, take your outrage over something I never did elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful to have a proper consensus building discussion (as in well defined parameters for weighing the opinions about policy) either at Cfd and/or a RFC on the article talk page. Right now there seems to be a rush to revert changes right away instead of working toward a true consensus that can stand the test of time. In my experience, most people can live with a decision, even if they disagree with it, if the points of view are examined and weighed and an impartial person closes the discussion. I will suggest this on the article talk page, too. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@FloNight: I don't see a CfD being a "consistent" option unless you are proposing to delete most analysis-based categories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

An CfD was mentioned by someone earlier in this thread, and I don't see the point of having a discussion on the talk page if a CfD is happening. Xfd's are the best method to establish whether a item meets policy guidelines for existing on Wikipedia, so I can see the point of doing one. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem with analysis-based categories, so long as we aren't the ones doing the analysis. If we're doing the WP:OR to call someone an activist, then that's a problem. I don't know that the category needs go away, but it surely cannot have unsourced (as in sources that say what the category is labeling them as) entries. And, given that we're dealing with BLP here - they should be solid sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no current CfD, so this is the only discussion venue right now. I would suggest,moreover:

Anti-vaccination activist may be viewed as a pejorative claim about a living person, thus any use of it as a category for a living person must be strongly and specifically sourced. It contains two parts, each of which must be satisfied: The person must be broadly 'anti-vaccine' as a general principle, and that must actively promote such a broad 'anti-vaccine' position.

Being opposed to specific vaccines (one entry in the category was apparently placed there because he doubted the need to continue the smallpox vaccine in the 1970's in Europe - Gerhard Buchwald now deceased) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is there without any rational basis in sources. Jenny McCarthy who specifically denies the label. David Icke unsourced. And so on. Collect (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's no need for "strongly and specifically sourced" -- a requirement of that sort is already well embedded in our general policies. Editors' views on whether the term is "pejorative" have no bearing, and there's no ground whatsoever for a "self-identification" or "disavowal" angle here -- what matters is what reliable sources tell us. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources do not state "activist" is the person still an "activist" in Wikipedia's voice? If the person is not specifically "anti-vaccination" per sources, are they still broadly "anti-vaccination" in Wikipedia's voice? Did you note the examples I gave - including one from a person who was likely right that general smallpox vaccinations in 1970s Europe were likely unnecessary? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, if the sources do not clearly state "X is an anti-vaccine activist" (or something REALLY close to that) then it is OR for us to make that determination. In even an extreme example, our Jenny McCarthy article has right in the lede that she is an anti-vaccine activist. She probably is. Unfortunately, the sources provided in the article (at least for that statement) don't actually say that. One talks about activists, but does not call McCarthy one. Another is an editorial blog post that characterizes the sentiment of reader opinion, rather than stating anything as the author or their publication. In other words, even for one of the most well known "activists", our article fails to make the case for tagging her as such. I imagine that if pressed, editors at that article would come up with some on-point reliable sources for the statement - and I think our policies oblige us to do so before branding/categorizing/labelling a BLP. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like trolling, I'm afraid. Kennedy is a very well known apologist for anti-vaccination views. See [4], [5], [6], [7] just for starters - all in the well-argued section on anti-vaccine activism in the very article you say does not establish the categorisation.

As to what Jenny McCarthy thinks, her motivation for trying to bury the fact of her years-long crusade against vaccination has more to do with the fact that it has killed her attempts to make a career beyond taking her clothes off.

You may find people on WP:FTN who know more about the subject in detail, the world of anti-vaccine activism is barely known to a lot of people - they either see the anti-vax lies as a legitimate part of a "debate" or are stunned to find that anybody would deny the science in such an open and shut case. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no issue with the category being renamed to something less inflammatory but still reflecting the fact that these are individuals prominently identified with the anti-vaccine movement. We absolutely should not be whitewashing this: they are responsible for outbreaks of preventable disease leading to serious harm and even death. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts too. This type of whitewashing should not happen. It would be better to find alternative wording which fits better. How about "Those loved by the anti-vax movement", or "Those who pander to the anti-vax movement", or "Those who profit from the anti-vax movement"? (I AM joking! ) These people certainly fit in them. RS which label them as anti-vax are generally easy to find, so deletion is not proper. Just add a {{cn}} tag and request a better source.

What they claim about themselves, especially coming from fringe promoters of nonsense, is rather irrelevant. Such types and groups always choose misleading self-descriptions, and Wikipedians have learned to never buy such self promotional pleading. Instead, we faithfully document their objections to the label, but we give RS the weight they deserve, which is much more than given to the subject. We are a mainstream encyclopedia which places more value on mainstream RS than fringe sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• On second thought, Guy's wording is pretty good, placing the burden on what independent RS say, which should always be the case: Category: Individuals identified with the anti-vaccine movement. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

“Identified with” seems vague. Is this basically a category for people who question government vaccine recommendations? (which I suppose would lead the anti-vaccine movement to identify with them) . On a similar note, there’s a discussion on talk:Jimbo Wales [8] regarding Journalist Sharyl Attikison criticizing WP, and her complaint apparently stems from the past use of this source to describe her as anti-vaccine in her bio http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given two public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. Talk page discussion of the issue can be found here --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

His name is publicized in numerous locations, including the New York Times.[9] Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kelly is currently the subject of an ANI thread related to this page. Link. Townlake (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Cite name I've already made my point on the talk page but I'd say the better way of phrasing it is should we republish his name now that he's acknowledged he is the recipient of the accusations. I can't find anything in BLP which should suggest we shouldn't. Also, note the parallel discussion at Gamergate controvery. GraniteSand (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. His name has appeared in numerous reliable sources for weeks. He has given interview. He is not trying to hide. He has been cleared of any charges. There is no policy or practical reason to omit his name.- MrX 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• No. Anyone-can-edit does not mean anyone can use Wikipedia to amplify an attack. In general, articles do not "allege" wrongdoings against non-public figures because hundreds of such allegations are made in various forms each day and the names are immaterial—an encyclopedia handles things differently from news media. There is no encyclopedic benefit from recording the name of the person involved. Wait until a court case is settled. The views of the person involved are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with much of that but I'll just ask, what part of BLP is it you think this is violating? GraniteSand (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per the named individuals's father - "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.”[10] It seems the reason they went public was that his name had already been illicitly leaked and they wanted Internet search results to also show their protestations of innocence. It would be a violation of BLP to keep his name out of this article. Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And, if we publish here, then his name will be linked to his accuser on the top search result site in the world and the thousands of automated mirrors of it. No turning back from that, no moving on ever. Every search for his name will forever first pull up her article here. That is the result of publishing in her article. Why do that? What benefit? --Tgeairn (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we don't name him, people will search "Emma Sulcowicz accuser" to find more about him, then click on articles with his name in them. Google will eventually associate has associated the keywords with his name. An inadvertent, smaller "miserable failure". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

• No. The student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed by others. He has allowed himself to be photographed, but only in the shadows, so he's still trying to maintain some anonymity. Adding his name to the article offers no further clarity, but doing so will probably spread the name much further than the other publications have. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• No: What is the benefit to the project or our readers of publishing? Whether we use BLPCRIME, BLP1E, BLPNAME, or some other reasoning - the fact remains that he wants to put this behind him. The two sources I read (NYT and something else linked earlier) both had quotes from the accused and his family saying they just want it to end. Just because we *could* publish it without violating our own policies certainly doesn't mean we *should*. His name adds nothing whatsoever to the reader's understanding of the Emma_Sulkowicz article. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  Adding his name to the article (and he did make his name public) does humanize him. He's been cleared, so he doesn't deserve to be the target of "the accused" claims that Sulkowicz makes him the target of without response. Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Accused is low-profile, and only known for an unproven rape allegation. You don't need the accused's name to understand the article's subject. I see no rational argument for adding the name. Townlake (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the one hand his name is already widely published, but on the other hand his name is not important. He was cleared of charges. She has chosen to carry around a mattress to publicize a perceived wrongdoing. He has actually already been cleared of that wrongdoing in a hearing before the university. I think we should take the high ground and withhold his name. I don't think we would be doing a disservice to the reader by omitting the man's name at this time. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with Mr. X above. We're making it clear that he's an alleged rapist. It's the job of Wikipedia to allow our readers to draw their own conclusions from what we give them, and we can safely rely on the fact-checking of all the other media outlets that have fact-checkers and not pretend the media doesn't exist. Also, neither will be students anymore per the NYT interview, in a matter of three months in fact.--A21sauce (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose adding the name of a low-profile individual unofficially accused of rape, but neither indicted nor convicted. The name is not necessary in the article about the accuser, and we have far higher BLP standards (thankfully) than newspapers do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Time isn't a newspaper nor is Elle. The male bias on Wikipedia is completely evident in this entire section.--A21sauce (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A21sauce, while male bias is an issue on WP, I honestly do not think it's accurate to characterize this discussion as a male bias issue considering the two editors who have removed the accused student's name from article are not male editors, and are actually members of the WP:GGTF where improving this article has been discussed. Efforts have included preventing the Emma Sulkowicz article from becoming a biased and poorly referenced attack piece on Sulkowicz, as well as removing the accused name while discussion ensues as to whether publishing his name is appropriate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, BoboMeowCat, thanks. You do realize that women can be sexist against their own gender too, right? The alleged rapist even claims he was raised by a feminist.--A21sauce (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Well sourced: NY Daily News 9 news AustraliaWashington Post. Subject has chosen to go public to counter the allegations; by refusing to say his name, and only categorizing him as "the accused" Wikipedia demeans his humanity. It makes Sulkowicz a person with a face and him so irrelevant his name isn't important. NE Ent 11:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The person falls under BLP1E as far as I can tell, and should be protected as such. Were he otherwise notable enough for a Wikipedia article on his own, then the allegation can be used as "widely reported" but as he is not, we can't. Absolute policy issue here. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and WP:BLPCRIME : "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I would go even further and suggest that the prose in "Sulkowicz's complaint" be toned right down - I appreciate Wikipedia is not censored, but seriously, is the mention of anal rape really important to mention to further the reader's understanding of the subject? I would say not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes This woman's notability comes from being allegedly raped, making her alleged rapist a key part of the story. Can't make an allegation without naming someone. The whole point of the mattress is getting one particular guy punished, so if we want to describe the situation, we need to be particular. Either that, or delete the article. Or rename her "the accuser". As it stands, we have one humanized person against one faceless menace. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect and Ritchie333. We aspire to be a respected encyclopedia. We are not a scandal sheet; we do not exist to promote scandals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the article? Subtract the scandal and its coverage, we have nothing left. She'd just be a student. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

One can write the article without including the alleged attacker's name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

One can do a lot of things. I think we should do better. This is a story about two sides, but one of them's turned into a prop for the other. Every mention of "the accused" just reinforces that he doesn't exist independently of the accusation. It's more a problem for the NPOV noticeboard, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Regarding BLPCRIME's "unless a conviction is secured", there won't be any trial because no charges were or will be pressed according to the article. We have all the information now we can get. And my personal opinion is that something that can be directly sourced to New York Times, Washington Post and Time can't really be a BLP violation in any case. That is just ridiculous abuse of the BLP policy. --Pudeo' 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We should not include this. It is a trivium and Wikipedia is not here to Google-bomb people who have, according to the consensus view, done nothing wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per BLPCRIME, per IAR (ie any rule that would allow us to increase the harm suffered by this person should be ignored). In reply to Pudeo - to say we should ignore BLPCRIME because " there won't be any trial because no charges were or will be pressed" makes abbsolutly no sense. If he has not been charged then all we do is perpetuate what is essentially a wild, legally unsubstantiated accusation that has failed to clear even the minimal bar of a college tribunal not just once but on appeal as well. If later he seeks significant coverage I would reconsider.JBH (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  It means we don't "have to wait for a conviction" to make sure it's viable. Instead, the case was dropped and the person in question was featured in NYT, Time, Washington Post which means it's acceptable and there is no BLP issue. BLPCRIME would apply if the case was just quietly dropped and there was no coverage from reliable and notable sources. --Pudeo' 20:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I must disagree. BLPCRIME exists precisely for this type of situation. It is to protect people from unfounded allegations which, at this time, this claim is. It does not matter who or what is reporting the name we have higher standards because Wikipedia is not transitory like a press article is.

  This kid does not even rate his own article and even if he did including a rape allegation would not be supportable as things now stand. To put his name in this article would punitively and permanently identify him as an alleged rapist and is just beyond the pale of responsible editing. If there is not even enough evidence for a prosecution and adding his name does not significantly enhance the article then naming and shaming (because that is all this would be) is both WP:UNDUE and ethical wrong. JBH (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm one of the absolute last people who will ever cite BLPPRIVACY, as I think there have to be extremely compelling circumstances to leave out one of the Five Ws. A quick examination of my edit history will show one such circumstance where I strongly support it, and the Emma Sulkowicz case doesn't even come close to that. The person obliquely referred to as "the accuser" (a reference to the somewhat tortured writing in the article, not a comment on his innocence or guilt) has decided to publicly discuss the case from his perspective, and has been very open about his name and the details of both the case and his personal life. One could argue that Columbia's initial outing of him forced his hand a bit, but that's speculation on our part. He chose to publicly acknowledge that he was the one Sulkowicz accused and subsequently targeted in her senior thesis, and BLPCRIME does not say that we need to attempt to cover up the name of a person who makes this choice. In the most congruous example I can think of at the moment, we quite rightly have Trisha Ellen Meili's name in the Central Park jogger case article; like this man she publicly acknowledged her role in the case, and like this man some earlier press coverage (in her case newspapers targeting a black audience) may well have forced her hand in doing so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights but all of the above comments makes me think that we won't ever reach a consensus on this even in the next two months, Wikipedia being a community of nonprofessionals who have feelings that run counter to what's been reported. (Is this like readers who are too sensitive to the fact of the US violating international human rights statutes?) I suggest we table the discussion until June 2015 when both Emma and he are due to graduate. (Even then this might not be resolved, but at least the accused will no longer be a student.)--A21sauce (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More time would bring more clarity. If he steps fully into the spotlight and engages the press in a significant and extended manner then put him in. Right now, in my opinion, the rules say we can put him but editorial ethics say we should not. I say this because stories in the press fade but Wikipedia, likely the top search result does not. This person is still very young and publishing his name here, particularly in an article on the alledged victim, gives little context to his story and leaves a cloud over him forever that extended context could mitigate. In fact I would be more willing to support an article on him than a mere mention in this article. In that event I would support his inclusion here. Context is everything. JBH (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless either of them go on to more popular things, the online press won't fade. They have rather unique names, too, less likely to be pushed out by the others, like Bill Adams must. As long as people search for one keyword, they'll find the rest for years. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

• No per Sarah (SV) and others. (And if User:SlimVirgin, the founder of the WP:GGTF, isn't the opposite of "male bias", I'd like to see who is!) The accusation was not in any way upheld by any court, therefore we should presume his innocence. We should not associate the name of an innocent and otherwise not notable person, with a highly negative allegation. The argument that "well people can find it anyway" is, at best, irrelevant, and at worst pernicious; the fact that others do evil is no excuse for us to join them. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• No I don't think we should publish his name at this time. If he is convicted, or else becomes more notable in his own right, I would change my mind, but currently his name adds nothing to the understanding of the article or topic. Also, the unproven allegations continue to mount. Now we have a male student being referred to only as "Adam" who apparently self identifies as "queer and black" alleging the accused also sexually assaulted him in a Columbia dorm room, saying he is one of the 23 students to file title IX complaints against the university. [11][12] Of course, if he's guilty of all of these sexual assaults, it would be very hard to feel at all bad that his name is linked at the top of search engines for this forever, but considering that currently he has not been convicted or even charged with any crimes, we should probably err on the side of caution and omit name.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patricia Neal

The infobox for the Patricia Neal article lists Gary Cooper as her "partner." Cooper and Neal had an affair over a period of a year or more, while Cooper remained married. Neal and Cooper never maintained a household, and their affair was not publicly disclosed at the time. Is this an appropriate use of the "partner" infobox parameter? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The amount of coverage of Cooper in the biography is way too high and gossip-mill fodder. Collect (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue in addition to Collect? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Does not belong in infobox. The documentation says "life partners" belong here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your input, gentlemen, and thanks for the corrective edits, Collect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century

Has a lengthy list of persons with "associations to the Bush administration". Unfortunately I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly, and the seeming aim of listing such people twice in the same article is an implication that membership and being a Bush Republican officeholder were intimately connected (i.e. making a connection in this article that the person is connected to both the Bush administration in some manner, and to PNAC is some manner but not using any source making that actual connection), which I find to be SYNTH by listing, and a violation of the WP:BLP requirements on sourcing, but my judgment has been questioned in the past and I leave it to fully uninvolved editors to comment. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis of course is right out. However there are plenty of quality sources that specifically link Bush administration officials to PNAC (see NY Times, BBC, etc). You should replace any synthesis with references to those sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The folks get listed twice in the article -- the second listing is in a table - artificially making the Bush-PNAC connection clear to readers. The article will not suffer a loss if the chart is removed. Collect (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing artificial about the Bush/PNAC connection. Whether it is in a table or not showing our readers the magnitude of the connection is important when looking at the role of PNAC in the history of the US. The table is effective but maybe a bit UNDUE simply because of its size. An explicit discussion of the connection naming some of the major players would be better. I would support removing the table iff there is a section discussing the connection. Until then the table should stay. JBH (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The table might even be the best format for quick reference, but one would have to see an actual proposal to replace it before evaluating that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The list is SYNTH, was SYNTH and shall remain SYNTH. Claims made in tables are often a problem, and this one is no exception. Cheers -- the Bush-NPAC connection is already made in the body of the article (Jbhunley's position) , and this SYNTH does not improve a BLP Collect (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, your assertion that

I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly

does not appear to have a basis in policy.

Second, is your objection to the fact that refcites for the respective associations laid out are not provided on the table? Or that the table format itself violates SYNTH? Others have indicated that sourcing does not seem to be an issue. Here's a list on Sourcewatch, for example.

The fact that there are eighteen names on the table clearly indicates that this is information that would be of interest to the reader, and that its sheer volume calls for a simplified presentation mode, such as the graphical layout of a table.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The individual statements that a person is an appointee are sourced to one source for each person, that they are a member of NPAC is a different source - catenating the two sources to make a claim is defined by WP to be "SYNTH". I suggest you find sources making the specific connection within the single source and not try using multiple sources to make sure the "truth" is shown to readers. Cheers,Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have described SYNTH. No, you have not described how the table is SYNTH. The source says a person is a member of PNAC, the same source says they were a member of the Bush Administration --> the table entry reflects this. A+B=C all in one source. As I said before bringing it all out in a table might be UNDUE but does not seem to be SYNTH.

You mention you are concerned with listing the names twice. This can be addresses by coming up with a way to present the initial member list and note the individual's position within the Administration. This might require some reformatting but it would do a couple of things to reduce the UNDUE:

1. It would avoid listing people twice.
2. It would 'spread out' the Administration members within the PNAC membership list thereby preventing the artificial 'weight' of a big table. It would also allow the reader have a better perspective on association/position in PNAC and position in Administration.
3. Gets rid of the extra table.

JBH (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. "History Commons" (presented as a source on the talk page) is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. The last source on the talk page presented is a book issued by Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a SPS press, and is not recognized as a publisher of reliable sources. With no reliable sources being presented, how do you propose we allow the SYNTH table? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that none of these: Elliot Abrams, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad,Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration. That they were both is almost WP:BLUE and no one is seriously contesting either their PNAC relationship or their membership in the Administration. Their status (except Cheney) with PNAC is in their respective WP articles so I assume sources exist. So are you saying no RS has commented on the PNAC/Administration overlap? So what would you want a source to say in order to include this information? I am not saying that I am unwilling to be convinced of your position but just saying SYNTH over and over will not get us there. Thanks for helping me understand your position better. JBH (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It would seem hard to dispute that one goal should be to "allow the reader have a better perspective on association/position in PNAC and position in Administration", which was probably one motivation behind adding the table.

Incidenatlly, I don't have enough knowledge about presenting sourced info from different sources in tabular form regarding the SYNTH claim.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:31, 10 February; 21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

These are the only notes I could find that seem to be on point.

• SYNTH is not ubiquitous
• Compiling facts and information is not OR

@Ubikwit: You had spaces mixed in with your :'s. I fixed it I hope you do not mind.

JBH (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I think that the following two quotes from the essayspolicies you linked to should suffice to refute the claim of SYNTH. In fact, the tapoic of the table itself is probably notable enough for an independent article.

Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established.
If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- essays are not policies. Cheers - but quoting an essay and claiming it is policy makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, essays. At they have consensus.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I did not say these were policy. Ubikwit did not say they were policy. I said that I had found notes that were on point. As the pages say, right at the top, they are "intended to supplement the Wikipedia:No original research page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." That they have been edited by many editors over several years indicate to me at least a weak consensus for what they say. Do you think they are inconsistent with policy? If so, how?

Earlier I asked you - "Are you saying that none of these:... were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you [saying] no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration.". You did not respond. Please give me a concrete example of what it is you consider SYNTH here. I really want to understand your position. What are A, B and C in this dispute?

If the only issue you have is no source that mentions these people by name, their association with PNAC and their influence on policy, here is one:

Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.

If either of can not access it you can email me and I will send it to you. Cheers. JBH (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See above where an editor stated "I think that the following two quotes from the policies you linked to should suffice " which indeed calls the two essays "policies." And no matter one slices it, the SourceWatch Wiki is ... a Wiki. Collect (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, OK, I've struck the offensive term

Now, are you going to answer the questions JBHG posed, or continue to divert the conversation and evade his questions?

@Collect: I stand corrected, my error. That is the only reply you have though? So what if they are not polices they represent some form of consensus on the issue we are discussing. Do you dispute this? If so, why? </p

I asked you for what you specifically think is SYNTH. Fine Sourcewatch is a wiki. So we do not use it. What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? This is the locus of the dispute if it is not addressed then we are merely spinning our wheels. JBH (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams

Almost one-third of this article is currently dedicated to a contemporary controversy. At present it is the epitome of recentism; a decades-long career has been reduced to a few sentences while nearly every quote and minor controversy from the past week is discussed.

The most contentious example of this is the repeated addition of a paragraph referring to Williams recalling that his hotel was overrun by gangs, and a random eyewitness saying he disagreed with the word choice. While perhaps relevant to the controversy itself, it is not nearly significant enough to be included in a biographical entry.

My personal suggestion would be the creation of an additional page dedicated solely to the controversy. This page could at least temporarily serve to include all relevant information for that current event. Then later, once the issue is no longer hot-button or immediately recent, only the most important elements could summarized and inserted into the BLP, and the controversy-dedicated page could either be deleted or kept up.

Right now the Wikipedia article reads more as a compilation of all the evidence "against" the subject than as a biographical encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is not supposed to be a debate forum nor a live-stream of controversial topics. (Baseball Pie - not signed)

It may be overdone - but it is sure in the news a lot lately with several areas of questions, and being suspended. Trying to keep it all out of the BLP where Williams has taken responsibility, however, is not condoned by WP:BLP - just that we should make sure wording is neutral, and we use short sentences. Collect (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires use of short sentences? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See Readability of Wikipedia. In other words, lengthy and drawn out sentences catenating multiple sources for claims may be less readable for the average Wikipedia reader who has roughly ninth grade reading and communication skills, even where multiple claims so catenated do not actually violate any specific policy, ease of understanding is, in point of fact, a valid goal for a broad-based encyclopedia. Your mileage may vary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- that's not exactly a short sentence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that I believe in short, declarative sentences for that reason. <g>. Collect (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Edward Alahverdian

Nicholas Edward Alahverdian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've never filed one of these before so my apologies if this is being over-cautions. So, with recent page protection actions in mind, please check out the recent addition to the talk page here talk:Nicholas Edward Alahverdian. I also have a question which is: what is the correct venue to resolve this recent flurry of edits regarding Mr. Alahverdian's controversial past? If those edits are backed up by reliable sources and are not libelous then should we keep removing them? —Noah 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected, and there is a proposal in talk to place the article in WP:AFD - Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My question was more in the opposite direction: if the article is kept, and if the controversial claims are well sourced, should we stop deleting them from the article? I don't have a dog in this fight... was more just curious about the intersection of NPOV and BLP in this case. —Noah 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, not this guy again; there is little that I detest more on-WIki than aggressive self-promoters. This has been at AfD several times in the past under variations of the name. I have to be away for a short bit, but will be back shortly and dig up the history. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A G4 request was made by me. Appears to meet GNG and has gone substantial sourcing and editing. EricJ1074 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). EricJ1074 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, the sources in the "current" areticle are the same squeezing-blood-from-a-stone fluff as in years past, but it'll take a little more looking in to as the citations are voluminous. Previous AfDs;

• 08-2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Alahverdian
• 09-2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian
• 08-2013, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al
• 04-2014, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas E. Alahverdian

Tarc (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, already deleted. All's well that ends well. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

THis is a huge mess. This pertains to an article called Nicholas Edward Alahverdian. Ok, so I noticed on reddit that people were going to spam an article on wikipedia. This has since become obvious. I managed to get it protected (by User talk:Callanecc and User:Kinu after the abuse started. As expected, the abuse came from the exmormon reddit where i had seen the mumblings about vandaising the page. A user named Saosebastiao1(whose edits are now not viewable since the article was deleted and who initially started editing with an ip address) and a user named Villaged ended up vandalizing the article and that's when Callanecc and Kinu protected the page. I further noticed that Saosebastiao1 and Villaged could be two of the exmormon reddit people since Saosebastiao seems to have made an anti mormon remark here and Villaged matches exactly the screen name of a reddit user at exmormon. Also, Saosebastiao is an identical username for the exmormon reddit as well. I then tried to get it speedily deleted under G4 because I noticed it was previously deleted. It was deleted. User:Nyttend reversed it and noted that it was not G4 because the article was heavily edited and contained new information. I then did a bit more research myself and found that there was more news and agreed. The article had sources about the subject from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others all directly mentioning and primarily featuring the subject. It clearly met GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). Multiple editors including User:NeilN, User:Nyttend‎, User:Doncram and myself made edits, supported that it met GNG, and did further research and sourced the article. Then User_talk:Floquenbeam deleted it again. This would not have happened if the page remained protected for the period until Feb 26 initiated by Callanecc. Now there are even more users (who may or may not be socks of Saosebastiao1 or Villaged) that are throwing mud at the subject of the article (also see here, here, and especially here. And now they even have entire talk pages devoted to their libel of the subject. at the subject and even implying that I am associated with the issue or the people (I am not). Also, they are nominating pages for deletion that clearly dont need to be such as Matthew Fabisch who is a state republican party director and sitting Judge. This needs to be dealt with immediately please. EricJ1074 (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, just leave it deleted and walk away, there are thousands of better topics and reputable subjects that could be fixed up rather than wasting time on Mr. Alahverdian, and this isn't the first time that off-wiki collusion and sockpuppet farms have been used to advance an agenda. What this is is like a reverse of WP:BLPDELETE; rather than a borderline notable person requesting deletion, we have a borderline notable person screaming for inclusion. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

David Goodwillie

IP address 171.99.139.55 is adding personal life material that is only sourced to a tabloid newspaper. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There are better sources. STV (TV channel)[13], The Herald (Glasgow)[14], The Scotsman [15]. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Repost: V.V.S. Laxman

I'd really like some help with this issue. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor is removing a cited claim that this person is the great grandnephew of a former President on the basis that VVS Laxman told him he's not the grandson of any President. Ignoring the error (nephew/son) to what extent does a purported conversation between a BLP subject and a Wikipedian trump WP:V? I looked in our self-published guidelines, but there's nothing about conversations. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V must take priority as the alleged conversation presumably can't be verified. I'm sure I've seen something in guidelines about deprecation of verbal reports or word-of-mouth sources. The cited claim should be reinstated. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, in this instance as the "fact" in question hasn't been disputed (it wasn't suggesting Laxman was a grandson of a president, which was the question asked of the man) then it should be reinstated because it's got to be presumed to be correct. But there is a wider question of what one does when "verified but incorrect" material comes into conflict with "unverified but correct". My view, FWIW, is that as Laxman's notability doesn't rest on his relationship with the ex-president, it's not essential as part of the article, so it could be omitted. No information is better than wrong information in an encyclopedia, IMO. But in this instance, there's so far no reason to suspect that the information is wrong. Johnlp (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

zoe sugg

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

I would like to have Zoe Sugg removed please.I am Zoe Elizabeth Sugg and I do not wish to have a wiki page on me please.I did not give permission to have it up and some of the articles are rather false.Please remove me from Wikipedia as I am stopping all vlogging and blogging and wish to remove my "fame" off here.I hope I can type zoe sugg in and not see a link to wikipedia.Thank you,Zoe Elizabeth Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoella17 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please state which information in the article is false. Unfortunately; you and your vlog seem to have attracted lots of attention in the media, so it's doubtful that the article will be completely deleted. However, if it has false information it's important to get that information removed from the article. So what is false?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zoella17: I checked the sources and they seem pretty solid for the content. Given the abundance of sources the article will likely remain in Wikipedia. - - Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to play the old devil's advocate here and suggest that Zoella17 is not in fact Miss Sugg. I've taken a gander at Miss Sugg's YouTube channel and she's uploaded a video within the last 24 hours - hardly the actions of someone wishing to stop vlogging I'm afraid. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[16] has been repeatedly added to the BLP, sourced to a primary source http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-leave-of-absence/ .

[17] tried adding this as a footnote:

However, he was granted leave of absence from the House of Lords on 06 November 2013, so is no longer a sitting peer, ergo he is not able to function as an elected peer. He has suspended himself. Below is from from the House's Companion to Standing Orders: LEAVE OF ABSENCE

• 1.27 Members of the House are to attend the sittings of the House. If they cannot attend, they should obtain leave of absence. At any time during a Parliament, a member of the House may obtain leave of absence for the rest of the Parliament by applying in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
• 1.28 Before the beginning of every Parliament the Clerk of the Parliaments writes to those members who were on leave of absence at the end of the preceding Parliament to ask whether they wish to renew that leave of absence for the new Parliament. In addition, at the start of each session of Parliament the Clerk of the Parliaments writes to those members (other than bishops) who attended very infrequently in the previous session, inviting them to apply for Leave of Absence.
• 1.29 The House grants leave of absence to those who apply. The House also grants leave to all members to whom the Clerk of the Parliaments has written as described in the preceding paragraph who fail to reply within three months of the Clerk of the Parliaments' letter being sent.
• 1.30 Directions relating to those on leave of absence are as follows:

(a) members of the House who have been granted leave of absence should not attend sittings of the House or of any committee of the House until their leave has expired or been terminated, except to take the oath of allegiance;

(b) members of the House on leave of absence who wish to attend during the period for which leave was granted should give notice in writing to the Clerk of the Parliaments at least three months before the day on which they wish to attend; and their leave is terminated three months from the date of this notice, or sooner if the House so directs;

(c) a member of the House on leave of absence may not act as a supporter in the ceremony of introduction;

(d) a member of the House on leave of absence may not vote in the election of the Lord Speaker or in by-elections for hereditary peers

No secondary reliable source has been furnished, and the relevance of taking a leave of absence has not been furnished. Sans a secondary source saying this of any importance I had removed it. Any other opinions? Collect (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good call. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have hit the revert limit -- anyone else agree this does not belong? Collect (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist and notified Rodolph of this discussion. JBH (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why call it a good call? Do you willfully want to ignore the significance of Leave of Absence? His having taken leave of absence means he is no longer functioning as an elected hereditary sitting peer in the House. It is true that he might reappear when the new Parliament sits later this year but I can not see for a moment why you choose to keep spitefully and bone-headedly discarding valuable and validified information? I have given the main source, the Companion to Standing Orders and the UK Parliament website. What is your problem?Rodolph (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY, extreme care should be exercised when using primary sources in a biography of a living person. Also, if no reliable secondary source has said that the leave of absence is noteworthy, then why should it be in an encyclopaedia? — Strongjam (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if some Wikipedia so-called editors want to stay on the side of the people who still think that the world is flat they can. If Wikipedia won't believe the authority of a UK Parliament official website then what will it believe? I can't think of enough expletives and asperity to do justice to my fury at the stone minds behind this repeated rejection, EVEN of a footnote, of this important information.Rodolph (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are 37 Lords listed as being on a Leave of Absence listed on Parliament's web site. Looks like a pretty common practice and is of no biographical importance at all. Now that you have vented please listen to what you are being told. If this is biographically important or important in any way a reliable secondary source will report it. It is not a question of believing Parliament's site, it is a question of *why does it matter that he is on leave*? So far you have not established that. Being 1 of 37 out of 790 just does not seem to rate mention. JBH (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Being on leave of absence is significant and worthy of at least a footnote. It means he cannot sit in the chamber, vote, ask questions, etc. If that is not worth recording then frankly what is? it is not as if it is in doubt that he is on leave of absence. Your logic is faulty. Many people are born in January, that does not make being born in January not worth recording.Rodolph (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Try this one: Ineligible Lords. Noting that he is an ineligible Lord, how could that not be worthy of inclusion? (Ineligible members of the House of Lords-The members listed below are currently not eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords.) Rodolph (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

From An official House of Lords briefing:

'Leave of Absence, 1958 An attempt was made in 1958 to overcome the criticism that on major occasions 'backwoodsmen' or infrequent attenders suddenly appeared in the House and determined the result of divisions. Standing Orders were therefore amended to enable those Peers who did not wish, or were not able, to attend the House regularly to apply for leave of absence. (A Lord on leave of absence is expected not to attend sittings of the House until the leave has expired or been terminated except to take the Oath of Allegiance. At least a month's notice of intended termination is expected).' Rodolph (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe that was solved by 1) requiring 3 months (according to current rules) notice before a Lord on leave can return to their seat 2) Sending notice Lords who have not been present much in the previous session asking if they plan to attend and placing those who do not respond on leave. Not a current issue by any stretch.

Why is this so important to you for this particular person? I checked the pages an several Lords who are on leave and it is mentioned in none. JBH (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is surely worth an innocuous footnote or reference. The Wikipedia article says he is a sitting peer, an elected hereditary peer in the House of Lords, thus if he is at present 'ineligible' and thus not able to function as a sitting peer then that should be worth recording. People mostly only take leave of absence if they are ill, dying, or don't want to have to fulfill in the extensive declaration of interests. The fact that it is not mentioned in other peers' Wikipedia biographies is the sign of lucunae on the part of Wikipedia rather than its non-importance.Rodolph (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unverified supercentenarians

This is a follow-up to the prior unresolved discussion but there's still more discussions about the listing of "unverified" supercentenarians. See also the 2014 deaths page (which with the 2015 page moves into problematic BLP issues as these people may in fact be alive). These are people in which no reliable source has actually verified their listing. The reliable source that is offered (GRG) has explicitly not verified their listing, only listing them as "pending" verification. The only purpose I can see to including them is so that people can copy the entire GRG table in case someone later becomes verified. This is pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation, there is no end time when these people would be removed. I find List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 to be the worst example of this: this includes people who may have died at 110 years old over 35 years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that we have no business including these here. It's one thing for certain well-known disputed cases (the Shigechiyo Izumis of the world exist), but the people in this topic area don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not the GRG, nor are we it's official output. Unverified by its nature means that no one is completely sure, and that level of surety is necessary; we have had cases (Margaret Fish being a spectacular flameout) where the GRG prematurely stated the person was dead, and users then perpetuated this mistake by putting it on Wikipedia. We should only be going on what sources are clear on, and that's completely incompatible with including giant swathes of "unverified cases" in longevity articles.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The GRG is a group of well-meaning amateurs. Not sure they are a reliable source to start with. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't as defined at the project nor in other sources (a table isn't the same as actual source material and using the fact that individual editors here claim to have seen the documentation isn't better). They are supposed to be a backup source. So if consensus is moving towards the removal of all pending listings, then they should be removed. It's the same reason I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims at AFD right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A group of amateurs whose publications have featured in peer-reviewed scientific journals (like Rejuvenation Research) and who are recognised as a leading authority on the subject of supercentenarian verification by Guinness World Records. Now remind me, what are YOUR credentials? Oh yes of course, a self-appointed arbiter of Wikipedia longevity articles. Your statement that you are "not sure they are a reliable source to start with" is baseless, ignorant, and offensive, rather like your comments on Stephen Coles's talk page when you called him a "quack". Why don't you try to put forward proper arguments? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning behind this. We have a reliable source stating that there are cases accepted as verified, and pending cases which have documentation and are being investigated. Then there are unverified claims. The cases that you refer to that are over 35 years old have not been pending for 35 years - documentation has been submitted to the GRG within the last few years. Designating pending cases as unverified and/or removing information selectively is clearly in violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:BLP to go in contradiction of the information stated in the reliable source. We should not be altering the information that is given by the sources (especially when it concerns living people), but reporting it as is given by the source. Please remember that it is Wikipedia policy to have a neutral point of view and report the information given in sources. Our source clearly sets out that there is a difference between verified, pending, and unverified cases. I don't see you stating any real reason for the suggested change other than your opinion that pending is the same as unverified. While that may be your opinion, it's not what the reliable source suggests and I don't think there is any reason to doubt a reliable source that publishes its research in peer-reviewed journals. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean for a case to be "pending"? It's not verified so what is it? It's not certain, it's not clear, it hasn't been approved of. How long does pending go on? Is Methuselah pending? Why not? We don't wait for an express disapproval from the GRG, that's basically saying we're just here to parrot the GRG and nothing else matters. Once GRG has verified it, fine, include it because then a source has asserted that it's true. If Guinness said that someone alleges that they are the biggest person but no source confirms it, would it be appropriate to list that person? No, that's in line with policy. Why do you insist on listing people that even the GRG hasn't confirmed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's stated in the source that a pending case is where an application has been made with early life documentation [18]. So yes, it is clear. No Methuselah is not a pending case - no authority has received documentation. The GRG has confirmed that these cases are under review. I insist on following Wikipedia policy on having a neutral point of view. If you can direct me to the policy that states that you can use your opinion to change information about living people that was taken from a reliable source, then I will gladly concede. But my understanding is that you cannot change information about living people based simply on your opinion (see WP:BLP). And even more so when we have information from a reliable source that gives contradicting information to your opinion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points about pending cases:

1. An orange light is not the same as a red light just because neither are green. When an athlete sets a "world record, pending ratification," it's still a considered a world record in the news media, and these are included in Wikipedia with a footnote. The GRG concept of "pending validated" is along this line... the case looks valid, pending final review and approval.

2. If the GRG - a reliable source - designates cases as "pending", why can they not be listed as pending, if the source lists them as pending? Who are you to say that the GRG's pending list is not a reliable source? YOUR opinion is not important; what matters is the facts stated in the source. To do otherwise is to violate WP:OR. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mekenna Melvin

"Fun Facts About Mekenna Melvin From Chuck". Girl2Watch.com. Retrieved November 2, 2010.

This is listed as a source in the article... however the link leads to a malicious phishing site... please ensure its removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.183.130 (talk)

Source removed and mostly replaced with others. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Thrift

You will see the comment on the Talk:Nigel Thrift page relating to Nigel Thrift which is basically a gratuitous insult and a threat to kill. As you will see I am connected to the subject so I do not wish to alter it myself but could I ask for someone to look at it and remove it please. Equally it may be the case that this poster could be involved in the recent additions to the page which could be seen to as part of a campaign against the individual rather than furthering the objectives of Wikipedia. Therefore could I ask someone more neutral in these matters to look at that content and see if it should be altered in any way in terms of tone, content and context and to keep an eye out any gratuitous reverts to any amendments that are then made if they are thought appropriate. Peter J Dunn (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter J Dunn (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you Nomoskedasticity

Jeb Bush

Has a paragraph on the release of his emails.

Is

The Christian Science Monitor noted that " most of Mr. Bush’s emails came with a disclaimer: “Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.”"

UNDUE in that section? (It has been removed as UNDUE and "redundant")? Is it reliably sourced? Is it a POV edit? (latest assertion)? Collect (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Wrong place to discuss this. This is not a BLP issue; it's a WP:WEIGHT issue and you should first try to resolve it on the article talk page before posting to noticeboards.- MrX 00:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats. Jeb Bush is a living person last I checked. You cited BLP reasons to bar the Christian Science Monitor article which is already used - but misses the salient quote about the notice given to all writers to the governor. And on my UT page you accused me of doing this as a POV edit. I daresay few here consider the CSM a POV-type source. Now you assert WEIGHT without apparently knowing what that refers to ... representing all significant viewpoints. A quote from the CSM is generally considered to be not a "viewpoint" but a straightforward statement of fact. We do not skip facts we do not like, we put them in. Or are you seriously claiming the statement is an opinion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[19] by the way shows that I had already posted on the BLP talk page, I fear you missed it?

Your last reply reads: I suggest we stick to concise facts rather than selective quotes that simply make Bush appear righteous. By the way, the state does not bulk publish emails. Bush on the other hand did.

which sounds more like a claim that the CSM is trying to make Bush appear righteous than anything else - and here I thought they were printing a fact. Guess they are all right wing Bushites <g> Collect (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The goal should be to represent all major viewpoints, not quotemine the sources to make it appear that what Bush did was somehow sanctioned by the state government. Ergo, my "concise facts" comment.- MrX 00:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And so the CSM is trying to whitewash Bush in some way? Hardly. The fact is that people were on notice that the emails were not private - not just that Florida does not redact them. Facts are not viewpoints here. Collect (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we depersonalize this and get back to the main issue? As I understand the original query, there are three points:

1. Is inclusion of the quote UNDUE?
2. Is the source reliable?
3. Is it POV?

Taking them in turn: (1) I agree that this is something to be hashed out on the article talk page. In the broad sweep of things it may not be that important to Mr. Bush's biography. But I'm not an expert on Mr. Bush. (2) Clearly yes. The CSM is a highly respected news venue. The reporter is an intern and as such is likely under more editorial scrutiny that the average reporter. (3) It seems like a simple fact, and is not inherently POV.

I haven't looked at the talk page but this doesn't seem like such a big a deal. It's not like Mr. Bush is being accused of doing anything unethical or his record is being distorted. It's simply a WEIGHT issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the sources, and am I right that you would only see the disclaimer if you first got an e-mail from Bush? If so, then someone sending his Social Security number saying 'Mr. Bush help me get my SS check' would not have seen the disclaimer, and so the proposed addition seems misleading (given the issue is disclosure of sensitive personal info), so under a strict reading of BLP that particular proposal should not go in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, and knowing the message I get using the state email system, the message is on the page where the sender types their message - not on the reply from the person in government. You likely have seen the same thing on email forms for various companies etc. Collect (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what WaPO said, it just says it came on e-mails from him, at any rate, if you e-mail someone you don't have to use their system, just your own e-mail account. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well when we sent emails to FL officials in 2004 they had the message on the contact page ... dunno what else one can say. When you email MSoft (f'rinstance) - do you have their email address already in your system or do you go to their Contact page? Collect (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

People get e-mail addresses from all kinds of places. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2)

I think you should wait a few days/weeks to see what other sources have to say. The disclaimer *may* become central to the shit storm that will likely arise from the email dump but it may not. For instance those who initiated contact with the Governor's office would not see it so it may have no legal effect (ie they could not have been put on notice before sending an email) and the controversy will center around the more banal issue of careless or something entirely different. Or maybe this will be a non-issue (No i do not really believe that. Anything is always an issue in partisan politics.). Whatever happens right now this is the very definition of RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. In general RS=yes POV=no, right now UNDUE until more sources comment. JBH (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[20] Under Florida law, all correspondence sent to the Governor’s Office, which is not exempt or confidential pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, is a public record. All public record electronic mail sent through this website will be posted to Project Sunburst at http://www.flgov.com/sunburst , and will be accessible to the public. If you do not want the public record contents of your e-mail or your e-mail address to be published on this website or to be provided to the public in response to a public records request, please do not send electronic mail to this entity.

Please be aware that personal information sent in your correspondence, such as home addresses and telephone numbers, may be posted to the Sunburst public records website.

Looks pretty clear that anyone going through the state website is given moderately clear warning. Collect (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant at this time. We will not know what the locus of the discussion on this topic will be until it has been through at least a few news cycles and there are more sources discussing it. I am not saying it should never go in. I am saying that this is *way* too soon to know. We are not day-to-day reporters here. There is not yet a fully established controversy to document. Although I am sure that there soon will be one. Then is the time to address this. JBH (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: The editor insists the statement is not neutral and tagged the entire section as POV - so had to post at WP:NPOV/N as well to cover the cavils. Cheers and apologies. Collect (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the presentation in the article. Instead of listing the facts it should explain the controversy, if one exists. Say so-and-so criticized Bush for releasing emails that had personal data, while so-and-so defended him saying...." It is important to know where the criticism comes from and how widely accepted it is. TFD (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If we seek a controversy, then I'm sure we will find one. By plainly stating the key facts that our sources took note of, readers can decide for themselves if the email release is controversial. Where we venture into a minefield is when editors choose quotes from sources that serve a particular point of view. A good example is the two quotes in the current version which tell the reader that they should believe that what Bush did was OK, because state law allows it and they were warned. It would similarly wrong if we wrote

"Time notes "The release of emails could be a privacy issue for some people whose email addresses were published. The emails include the names and personal email addresses of many Florida and other constituents, and one woman whose emails were posted complained to the Daily Dot that she was embarrassed by some of the emails." "[21],

or "Newsweek noted, "Bush not only published every email, he published every email address—and many personal names, physical addresses and personal phone numbers, that people include in their email footers. The archive contains thousands upon thousands of personal identifying details about Floridians." "[22].

- MrX 03:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mess. Definitively worthy of inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.

There is obviously a controversy, so the article should probably list the facts, first, and then the reliably published opinions (POVs), accordingly.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Living people personality rights violations

This is about living people in images, not in text. At age disparity in sexual relationships an anonymous IP address keeps adding public domain images of couples. They were previously banned for a few days over the issue of ignoring consensus of the page imagery. I have reversed them, but the page needs to be monitored. The images are tagged for personality rights and by adding them to the article for decoration we are violating their personality rights by imputing that they have a sexual relationship and guessing at their age and suggesting that there is a substantial age difference between them. The consensus has been to stick to public domain art which avoids violating personality rights in a sexual article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Asaduddin Owaisi

I seem to have stumbled across a possible BLP issue while going through recent changes, in the article on Asaduddin Owaisi. I initially noticed this edit [23], and reverted it after looking through the sources and finding no support for what sees to be quite a contentious claim. Since then, the claim has been re-added and removed several times. I was hoping for some extra eyes on the claim, or on the page. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A claim like that can certainly not be based on a blogspot posting. The most recent removal of the claim looks in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this page is a magnet for Islamophobes. The only solution is to permanent semi-protection. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Lianne Chandler

All her notability seems to stem from an alleged relationship with Michael Phelps. Candidate for WP:BLP1E? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the article's horrible sourcing from The National Enquirer, Howard Stern, TMZ, "The Hollywood Gossip," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Gail Harris

From 12/23/2014 till 2/10/2015 I have been researching and adding information to the "Gail Harris'/Gail Thackray page.Knowing it's a biography I was especially careful to fully cite all with references and links. All statements are cited. On 2/11/2015 User Wdbsami revised article, removing all pertinent biographical information and all of the many referenced links to her involvement in Adult Entertainment and Porn and then inserted what I believe reads as a sales advertisement promoting Gail Thackray's personal business (spiritual healing???). The new revised post is written in the first person, by I assume Gail Thackray. I was going to just revise the article back to remove that nonsense. But, I did not want to deal with this person who will probably start an edit war. Can someone please look into this and relate what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com

• After coming across the above website being used as a ref in the BriaAndChrissy article, I placed an {{unreliable sources}} tag at the top of the article because I'm on the fence as to whether it is reliable. Thoughts? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The individuals state their own birthdays in their YouTube videos and they match the famous birthdays website so I can confirm the dates for the BriaAndChrissy article are correct. I'm going change the refs for that article and remove the tag. As for the reliability of the famousbirthdays.com site itself generally--I don't know. I watched a different video of a celebrity looking up her own birthday on that site and hers was correct too. I don't know who runs the site or where they get their data though.Dawneyestone (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

Rebel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wilson's birth year has long been the subject of edit wars, and previous discussions on the talk page led to the omission of a date until better sources were found. However, the issue has just picked up again. A source from The Sydney Morning Herald was recently added to the article that implies she was around 22 in 2002, making her birth year 1980. Recent SMH articles, [24] and [25], have contradicted that and placed her age at 28 in Feb 2014/Jan 2015, making her birth year 1986. I'm posting here to ask for more views on the matter. My thought is that we either say that sources exist for both years (similar to Clare Bowen perhaps), or omit the date altogether for now. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• The current source is really bad. I would delete it out of hand if this discussion hadn't been opened and I'd stumbled on it. Anyway, I vote for the Clare Bowen approach, but the current source can't be used. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current source shouldn't be used, especially since it doesn't actually give her then-age as 19; it says she "was 19 by the time she first saw a professionally produced play", not stating exactly when she saw said play. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• The current source said she was 22 in late 2002, thus simple math indicates 1980 as year of birth, as her date of birth is February 3. While I don't understand this passionate determination to make her 6 years younger, which I think is highly unlikely, but there is no reliable source to indicate she was born in 1986, and she has refused to provide any proof, so if she doesn't care, then why do you all? Quis separabit? 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, the source said that another actress (Bronwyn Purvis) was 22 in 2002, not Miss Wilson. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The article has been fully protected now, so this thread can probably be closed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

G4

Can you please delete this article per G4? EricJ1074 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated it, but I'm not sure if it's the same content, so an admin will review it and decide. By the way, you posted this same request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is not the correct place. In the future you can use WP:Twinkle to nominate the page for deletion, or you can add this template: {{Db-repost}}. - MrX 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sean Danielsen date of birth

At the article for Sean Danielsen, his date of birth was injected with only the year coming from a student newspaper, and the day of the month coming from a primary source. Can the two edits be permanently deleted from Wikipedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I just removed the month and day of birth from Danielsen's profile. If this edit can be permanently deleted as well, that would be great. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

neil smith

is it necessary to reference Joe Biden's current gaff about Neil smith being an old Butt buddy (maybe he said something else) on Neil Smiths bio. wouldn't it be more appropriate, if at all on Joe Biden's page??????????/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.2.172 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC Brian Williams

Hello,

There's an RfC on the Brian Williams talk page you might be interested in Here. Thanks, SW3 5DL (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

Myself and @GoldenBoy25: have added a direct in-line citation to this NBA player's career stats table, which have been removed by @Bagumba: and @Bossanoven:. For me the fact he is an NBA player is irrelevant; first and foremost he is a WP:BLP and so the info should be directly cited wherever possible per WP:V. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject NBA does not like to put citations in the statistics box except in the extenuating circumstance of a player leading the league in a major statistic in a given season. I am not sure whether there was a formal discussion there on this sort of thing, but I don't think you will find NBA player articles with references in their respective statistics boxes. I believe the general feeling amongst the majority of editors dedicated to NBA articles is that the statistics are too trivial to concern with this sort of thing. In fact, we even considered removing the boxes from the articles altogether. There are myriad external links for the statistics, including in the player's infobox. - Bossanoven (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Him being an NBA player, and the personal preferences of a WikiProject, are both wholly irrelevant. Either the stats boxes should be directly referenced, or they should be removed completely. Having masses of unreferenced info about BLPs is completely unacceptable. GiantSnowman 10:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If «WikiProject NBA does not like to put citations in the statistics box», then WikiProject NBA should stand back when other editors remove uncited claims about living people. Spumuq (talq) 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: "masses of unreferenced info": You are probably referring to WP in general, as this article already has 315 citations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Background: My single edit regarding this topic of stats cites was this revert two days ago with edit summary: "thanks, but the stats external links "should" be enough in this case; too cluttery, and i'm usually big on WP:V" Someone was bold, and I reverted. I'm not here to edit war on this.

My open question to those preferring the citation is whether the stats are being challenged by yourself, or as a courtesy to someone else that honestly might 1) think they are incorrect and 2) would not know where to find the information. If this is being added as a matter of style as opposed to an actual challenge of fact, this is a gray area of citing the the sky being blue. Food for thought, most articles do not cite a person's full name spelling, or their actual birthdate, as they have not been challenged or people are content that it is verifiable, though not cited.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So , if I'm reading right, Giant Snowman claims BLP and Bagumba claims a preference from Wikiproject:NBA? I'd say BLP is high priority and therefore the citation needs to go back in. I didn't see any consensus on cites being in statistic boxes, but even if it existed, it would be considered local consensus anyway. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the project, but I make no claims for the project itself, nor do I think there is a consensus there anyways. It's just generally not been challenged before. Truth be told, if original insertion was more strategically placed without unduly expanding a specific column 3x, I would not have reverted. I just thought at the time it looked clumsy to to cite one column out of a whole table.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

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

I'd like to request that user DAJF be banned from editing the Fiona Graham page as I noticed he has a personal agenda. In August 2011 it was decided that Fiona's age would be removed and he was part of the discussion on the archived talk page therefore it should never have been brought up again in 2015 unless the 400 year old Geisha association decides it's acceptable to display a Geisha's age.

Upon further review I noticed he has made 102 edits in the past 5 years and almost all of his edits have been negative while reverting any positive content posted on the page. These 102 edits make him by far the top contributor accounting for 34.7% of the total text on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris514 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to post a topic-ban request at ANI. But: what a Geisha association thinks is acceptable has no bearing here. Also, the only recent edit on that article is this -- not sure why that would be a problem, and I don't think it should have been reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's already been discussed on the talk page in 2011 and removed in 2011, on what basis should it be added again now, in 2015? Nothing has changed since then and the user was part of the discussion in 2011 therefore he cannot claim he didn't know. Boris514 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should this category be removed? I see no prior discussion of removing this category, only discussion about removing an unsourced birthdate. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change... and, for that matter, people may not have memorized everything that was discussed four years ago and is now no longer on the talk page or even the most recent archive. The addition of a category would seem to be something that can be addressed with a WP:BRD cycle; it hardly seems like the key basis for a banning, particularly since the category seems to be accurate. The concept that we can never again address topics from years-old discussion is not in accordance with common Wikipedia practice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

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

This page has come up on this board a few times. I wanted to solicit for broader (and hopefully more specific) feedback here. There are some contentious topics I have or plan to add content to, but this particular section I have not seen any criticisms, controversies or debates to add and it seems to be one of the primary things she is notable for. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with sourcing Playboy Playmate articles

There's a couple BLP issues here I'd like to raise with Playmate articles like this one.

1) For statistical information about Playboy Playmates, Wikipedia articles largely rely on a website called wekinglypigs.com (NSFW). That site appears to be a private individual's copy-and-paste mirror of Playmate data originally published by Playboy (NSFW). I raised an issue with wekinglypigs.com at WP:RSN, and received a response that wekinglypigs.com fails WP:BLPSPS and should not be used in BLPs. I agree, but would like others to verify this before any changes are made.

2) Playmate data reported by Playboy -- in fact any statements about these models from Playboy itself -- has its own host of problems. As a primary issue, all human bodies change over time, so Wikipedia's reporting living Playmates' measurements as current seems problematic. Looking "bigger picture," Playmates are essentially models / entertainers hired by Playboy to play a certain role, and to have a certain appearance. Playboy is well known for airbrushing photos, and Playmates sometimes use fictional names in the magazine. In the magazine and in their public appearances related to being Playmates, they're basically on the job. Yet for most of these models, their Playboy personas -- and the data Playboy has chosen to report about them -- form the primary basis for their Wikipedia biographies. This practice is a bit like basing Jerry Seinfeld's biography on the alternate version of himself that he played on his television show -- something we thankfully don't normally do.

I have ideas on how to address these issues in mind, but before I suggest those, I want to make sure these are actually issues. If these actually aren't problems, obviously there is no need to suggest solutions. What say you? Townlake (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the intent is to report measurements as current, merely as as of the appearance. Maybe that should be specified in the infobox. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)