Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

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

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

Phillip Nelson

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

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

Michael Paul Stephens

Resolved

– Article deleted Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a blatant promotion and rambling autobiography:

"host of international wellness workshops"
"an eBook and made available to all through Stephens’ website"
"Michael and Orranut split temporarily due to differences in their life direction"
"private therapies, classes and workshops"
"offering corporate HR and training programs"

It has no inbound links and was created on one day by an account not used since. It was tagged for notability and sources in Oct '11. Suggesting the next step is to flag this for deletion for notability? jk (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! It was just speedied. Qworty (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett johsansson

Resolved

– Vandalism delt with.Malerooster (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a header with a personal insult toward the subject of the article. I am assuming this has something to do with the woman being a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.54.39 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism - already dealt with by ClueBot NG, our faithful (if not always infallible) anti-vandal bot. Thanks for letting us know about it, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Keiser

An IP from the 128.211 range has repeatedly added[1] libelous claims in the article and on Talk:Thomas Keiser, which are not confirmed by the provided sources. However, even if the claims were true, it's highly questionable whether this should be included in the bio of the alleged victim. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source given by the IP, ain't a source for the claim he made. And any such claim requires extremely strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this board, when nothing is done? The defamatory and unsourced statement was added again from the same IP range only 5 hours after this posting. Can't an admin at least semi-protect the article? In addition, the same IP is openly spreading her claim also elsewhere User talk:Yankees10#Thomas Keiser, which might also violate WP:BLP. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the biography for two weeks and deleted the revisions. The section at the Yankees page has been hatted. De728631 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edelstein

Hi I am employed by Freud Communications and have Michael Edelstein as a client. We have noticed that Michael's page is out of date and would request the following additions:

Michael joined NBCUniversal International in June 2010 as President of International TV Production and relocated to London.^[1]Michael Edelstein also serves as a board member of WTTV, NBCUniversal’s joint TV production venture with Working Title^[2]Edelstein also helped launch the CSI drama franchise when he was Director, Current Programs at CBS Entertainment.^[3]

Michael won two Golden Globes for best comedy series, for 'Desperate Housewives'^[4]

For an image of Michael Edelstein, please see the image on this website: http://images1.variety.com/graphics/photos/_muge/edelstein_michael.jpg as this has been cleared for use, rights wise etc. If an original copy of the image is required for upload, then please leave a comment on this post and this can be arranged.

Thanks

Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonFC (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Facussé Barjum

An editor with no prior edit history keeps removing this sourced paragraph and 2 external links from Miguel Facussé Barjum. I finally got the editor to comment at Talk:Miguel Facussé Barjum, where he claims they're libellous (even the external links?). Comments please. Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad O'Brien again...

Could people please keep an eye on the Soledad O'Brien article - we have IP's inserting negative trivia and WP:BLP violations again. I could ask for semi-protection, but I think a few more eyes on the article might be more effective in the long term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching it. I warned 128.59.135.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and they came back a few hours later as 128.59.112.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A range block may be in order here. --Jayron32 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We now have an IP attempting to justify inclusion of trivia on WP:OR-breaching grounds: "Taken as a single event, it could be considered to be trivia. But I'm trying to document a pattern. So in totality, it's not". [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the IP a note and advised them to use the talk page. I've added the article to my watchlist. Giant Snowman 16:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School shooting

The School shooting article refers to a number of living and recently-dead people as having killed others at various schools around the world. In cases where there is no citation, that seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:BDP. I have requested references for anything in the last 20 years via {{Citation needed}}.

Question: Should I instead be deleting such information under the "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" rule? RossPatterson (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no. Unless you believe the information to be actually wrong, it's better to just find sources yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some missing references.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, though, with something this serious, I'd make a good faith attempt to find a source before removing, but if I can't find one then BLP concerns woudl probably mean removing the content. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RossPatterson (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magnante

The article states "Magnante was also discussed in Moneyball, in which he was prevented from receiving his full retirement benefits - only ten days from retirement - by the acquisition of Ricardo Rincón."

The first edition paperback of Moneyball, on page 213, reads in part: "It wasn't that Mags was just four days short of his ten-year goal. He'd get his pension. It was that, in all likelihood, Mags was finished in the big leagues." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonslayerApps (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of family relations in American football

This inquiry was originally posted at the WP:BLP talk page. It has been suggested that it should more appropriately be posted here.

List of family relations in American football is a list of players and coaches of American football who are purportedly related by family to one degree or another. The list includes over 300 individual football players clustered in over 125 family groups. Over sixty percent of the individuals listed are still living. The article asserts that various persons are family members, twin brothers, fathers and sons, cousins, and various other relations. The entries for each person also include a list of teams played or coached by such person, often with the years of association with the particular team. The article does not contain a single source for any of the persons, living or dead, who are listed, nor for any of the various purported family relationships set forth in the list. Not one single source for any of the persons listed. [Since my original post on the BLP talk page, one source has been added.] This material is not necessarily contentious, but is subject to challenge in many instances because it may or may not be accurate in many of the particulars, including the degree of family relationships asserted. Does this constitute a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what is the remedy? The article has been nominated for AfD in the past 48 hours. Your advice is hereby solicited. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the AfD page, I am willing to overhaul the article this weekend - add sources and remove all unreferenced additions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it has begun... Giant Snowman 09:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, this inquiry is not intended to preclude your efforts to upgrade the article with sources, which I applaud wholeheartedly. I am not crusading for deletion; I want to see the sourcing problems resolved. The reason for this question is to determine whether the article's present condition constitutes a material violation of the BLP policy, based on the best advice of editors who work with BLP policy on a regular basis. Obviously, if you properly source the article over the next several days, this inquiry becomes academic. Nevertheless, I think it would valuable to my understanding and others who are participants in the present AfD discussion to clarify this issue. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-check the "present condition" - I've already wielded my axe ;) Giant Snowman 10:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Martin-Smith

I am the above and in your page about me someone has reported that I opened new club Mancunia and the "community felt cheated as it was the same club as Essential". This is libelous. Would you please remove it Mancunia was a totally new venture with several partners and a completely new club to the afore mentioned Essential and the writer may have felt "cheated" but this is a personal view and that person cannot speak for the "community" whatever that is ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.64.129 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the majority of the section on Essential as it was unreferenced and full of personal opinion. Giant Snowman 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sachs

On a state senator's wikipedia page, a user added "Ethics Complaints and State Investigations", the content of which are accusations from the Republican party to the candidate. This new information is not verified, as it cites Republican news sources (the Republican YouTube page and a right wing blog). It is a partisan attack with material that is not relevant to the wikipedia page.

The newly-added section violates NPOV, Veriability and No original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambola1242 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some attack content which was written in a shamelessly partisan way, and sourced to such non-reliable sources as a business Political action committee's website. Could some other editors (preferably non-Democrats) take a further look? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it should matter what Party one belongs to in order to review an article. Partisan POV pushing is a bad thing from either side. Just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab. --Malerooster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must not only be NPOV, but be seen as being NPOV. Since I'm outspokenly anti-Republican, I felt it was all the more important that other editors who don't necessarily agree with me (or Sachs) be involved. I have, however, removed the link to a document posted on scribd.com, which is a place where you can upload anything you want. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and thanks for your candor. --Malerooster (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dario_Maestripieri

This person recently produced content on facebook which drew attention from several women's rights individuals, blogs, and news sources. A brand new user (joined yesterday) keeps deleting the controversy section. The content is well sourced on several external sites and is not likely to be fabricated. I believe it meets all BLP requirements and should be part of the article. Latest delete diff follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Maestripieri&diff=518689810&oldid=518624567

I currently only see Jezebel and Chicago Maroon articles about it, plus various blog posts. If it get's picked up by more news agencies it might be worth including, but now now. a13ean (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does it become news and not a blog? The breaking of the story was on a blog (Drugmonkey), and the conversation has largely happened in social media. Jezebel is a blog, as are all Gawker sites, though evidently they are considered news? Here's a list of other articles I've found: Inside Higher Ed, Boing Boing, The Scientist, The Cellular Scale, Isis the Scientist, Adventures in Ethics and Science (For reference, here is the link to the Chicago Maroon article.) -effigies (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientist article is worth something, but the blogs don't really help here. It becomes news when reliable news sources pick up the story, and so far, that hasn't really happened, although it could easily in the next day or two. a13ean (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source yet has actually done ANY investigative journalism. Reblogging an iPhone screen grab is not journalism. This why I deleted the controversy section. If an MSM source actually interviews Dr. Maestripieri to get his side of the story, then sure, add it to the page, but without full context of the comment its hearsay at best, libel at worst. -PseduDoxing (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story was picked up by Inside Higher Ed this morning. They have attempted to contact Dr. Maestripieri by email and phone and were unable to reach him. A University spokesperson has stated that he had decided not to comment. Is that enough investigative journalism? Is Wikipedia not allowed to show a controversy on a BLP page if the person never directly comments on it? - SpinozaQ (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that it's gossip about a private facebook post. If you want to talk about controversy, go read his posts over at psychology today [4]. He's a human behavior researcher that focuses on sex characteristics. His jesting about gender roles is obvious, but of course some may be offended and interpret his musings as insults, for better or for worse. I'm sure you can pull something juicy and more relevant out of that. It would have the added benefit of actually being vetted by the content creator. -PseduDoxing (talk 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The now widely known controversial statement is well within the context of the individual's published research on sex characteristics. More reason it should be included in his page. It may have been a completely neutral statement or observation. It did however, cause a controversy. The section is not negatively written, it merely states, like you say, that some people were offended, and cites those sources that wrote about the issue. (P.S Please fix your computer PseduDoxing. Every edit you have made to Wikipedia in the lifetime of your account, 24 hours, has deleted random words that has broken links and templates. ) SpinozaQ (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, context highlighter was on and inserting html. I'm glad that the length of time my account has been active has any bearing in a rational discussion on this topic. Seems valid. If it's Wikipedia's policy to highlight gossip as actual controversy that should be immortalized, then I guess it should stick. I sure hope no one ever gets a hold of my email or facebook account. The things that could be taken out of context and judged poorly in the court of public opinion would be enormous. -PseduDoxing (talk 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that this has now been covered on Science Magazine's blog page. Science Careers -effigies (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to omit the material for now. It's on the edge of notability and I don't think we need to help promote it. If it takes off further it can be included later. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Please leave this material out until it is widely covered by relaible main stream sources. --Malerooster (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a few blog as well as opinion pieces now making the rounds. Unless more comes of this, this still seems pretty insignificant. Guy makes stupid tweet, is that really artilce worthy? I will soon bow out and defer to others. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deziree Ramirez

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deziree Ramirez, it appears that this article is based on an elaborate hoax borrowing the identity of someone else. I think there is some cause for short-circuiting the AFD process and summarily deleting and salting the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

will arnett

This biographical article reads a bit like a press release from the subject's publicist. For instance he is stated in the first paragraph to have had "major movie roles", but in the very next sentence we are told he has supporting actor roles in four very obscure movies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Gbrims (talk • contribs)

Please use 4 tildes(~) to sign your somments and also feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Not sure if you used the article talk page but that is good also. I took a stab at copy editing the article based on your concerns. A little better? --Malerooster (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrsten Sinema

Resolved

– SPA has been blocked and multiple users are watching this now. --Malerooster (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to editing by an SPA that was digging up all kinds of court records, traffic tickets, and public records on her law career. He cluttered the talk page with accusations of medical conditions and lots of other inappropriate synthesis and speculation based on the public records. I have blanked the worst stuff off the talk page. The article could use some additional watching. Gigs (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the controveries section that had a blog entry as its only cite. --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this article tonight and was, frankly, appalled. Although Gigs and others have mitigated the worst problems, which I appreciate, what has been going on for the past 9 days was disgraceful. All kinds of negative and in some cases bizarre comments about the BLP subject were being made by a new SPA, User:OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks, which given the context of the contributions should have been blocked on sight as a username violation. I'd like to ask that some administrators and experienced editors monitor this page between now and the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a note for Go Phightins!, letting him know I think he made a pretty big mistake giving a third opinion earlier on this page without catching what seemed to me to be blatant violations of BLP policy. It is concerning to me as well that none of the editors that encountered this page earlier took it more seriously. Gigs (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It lokks like we are all on the same page more or less so I marked it as resolved and will keep it on my watch list. If this hasn't been resolved to anybody satisfaction, please feel free to remove the tag. --Malerooster (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Biel

I changed the dates in the infobox of her and Justin Timberlake's marriage from 'm. 2012' to '(2012-present)'. It's been consistently reverted back to the 'm. 2012' way even after I stated Infobox spousal guidelines. It's been discussed on her talk page but it needs to be settled on which is the correct format Lady Lotus (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating myself for the 101st time here. "2012-present" is like saying "2012-2012". 2012 is the present. The above user simply WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Zac (talk · contribs) 04:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally changed it to 'm. 2012' - but I did not do that by writing 'm. 2012' the way it is now, I did that only by way of inserting the standard Wikipedia marriage formatting tag. I am baffled to return to my computer and discover this has somehow led over the last few hours into an argument between the two of you. What both of you seem to be overlooking is that the reason it said 'm. 2012' is because that is how the standard marriage tag works. It ONLY lists the year the couple married, unless the marriage has since ended by death or divorce, in which case it will say (2012-2015) or whatever year the death or divorce occurred. So even for a couple who got married as long ago as 1972, as long as they remain married today, it would just say (m. 1972), not (m. 1972-present). See Danny Devito as an example. It has nothing to do with the fact that 2012 is still the present, so the argument you two are having is irrelevant and the formatting as it stands now ('m. 2012' randomly inserted there, not by way of the marriage tag) looks incorrect, imo. Either use the standard marriage tag, or use the 2012-present format that is used in some articles that haven't adopted the marriage tag. Starswept (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Starswept[reply]

Oh, and I would add that the Infobox spousal guidelines Lady Lotus is citing do note that the marriage tag can be used instead of the (year-present) formatting, so that didn't come out of left field. Starswept (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Starswept[reply]

Both (m. 2011) and (2011-present) can be used for the infobox, in which I prefer the former. The issue here actually was the fact that 2012 is the present, and therefore "-present" cannot be added onto it. Lady Lotus said to me that it doesn't matter because 2013 is just a few months away, which is a violation of crystal ball. At least that was the issue with me. I re-added the marriage template, and it removed. Zac (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the guidelines says that the marriage tag could be used for convience but yea it doesnt do anything for people still married, only if there is a set to and from date, not if they are still married. And this is NOT an issue of "ICANTHEARYOU" because i could easily say the same about you. All I'm saying is that yea it looks a little weird because it is still 2012 and you wouldnt put (2012-2012) unless they get divorced in the next 2 months, so it needs to have 'present' with it until one of them either dies or they split up. marriage should always have a start and a finish or a start and a "tbd". Lady Lotus (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it needed? Right now it says: Spouse(s): Justin Timberlake (m[arried] 2012). As a reader, I conclude: Jessica Biel has a spouse. His name is Justin Timberlake. They got married in 2012. There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about that. I don't need to be told they are still married - it's obvious. If they were divorced or dead it would say so. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the template may need to be updated. As for the consenus, on the talkpage there were only three editors involved and could be seen as a rough consensus as Lady Lotus did fail to demonstrate a valid reasoning for their version while two editors have explained that the use of the term Present is not needed. The fact that the issue is so pressing for Lotus is a concern that they may be trying to "win" this situation. The "I can't here you" appears to be LL who, even after several venue attempts and comments, still refuses to accept what has clearly become the consensus. If the editing continues after this unabated, this may be a case for an RFC/U.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen me change it since last night? No, so don't threaten me with RFC, I wanted to get consensus, and I got consensus yelled at me, it just wasn't in my favor. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is this here? Is there any BLP violation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this is a petty edit war, please use the article talk page instead. Giant Snowman 15:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've warned both Zac and Lady Lotus for edit warring. Giant Snowman 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Brennan

I remove the sentence as the cited source doesn't even mention his parents, let alone confirm who is father is. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Atleo

defamatory or libelous information has been added to the biography of this person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shawn_Atleo&diff=518863549&oldid=517242850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.38.206 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report - I have removed it - please in future consider WP:BOLD being bold and removing it yourself - Youreallycan 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The violator User:85.112.95.8 - contributions is also a proxy server - WP:Proxy - perhaps an admin can block it - I don't know the place to report proxy IPs - Youreallycan 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a report at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. JFHJr (㊟) 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you John, for the report and for the link. - Youreallycan 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report

Drudge Report falls under WP:BLP as indicated in prior discussions. There have been many prior discussions on whether to call it "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice, and the main proponent of that claim is now banned for socking. No prior discussions have, in fact, found it proper to so call the website in Wikipedia's voice, and the article has always included the statement that some have called it "conservative" thus claims of "whitewashing" fail from the start.

We now have a "new" IP who has been reverting to get the claim in again [5], [6], and I feel that raising the issue here is proper. I find his assertion as a new user The consensus is that 99% of people consider Drudge conservative. I have yet to see a contrary source to be an indication that the "new user" has not read the discussions on the article talk page. The sources furnished are generally very "bloggish" or "opinions" at best (DailyBeast, MediaMatters, Gawker, Slate etc.) , and the person seems to ignore the studies showing that while Drudge, as a person, may be libertarian, the report covers the gamut in stories, including being a major driver for non-conservative sites linked. Thus the consensus before about saying some consider it conservative was sufficient. The prior discussions all agreed with this position (other than the one banned sockmaster) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Ashraf Kaira

Kindly refer to the article (link below) on the biography of a living pakistani politician Mr. Kaira. Some of the contents are highly libelous, poorly sourced and should be removed immediately. Especially, the section titled "Corruption" which declares him to be one of the most corrupt politicians without providing any proof or whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanveer_Ashraf_Kaira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.91.136 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is not in the article. Given that it wa unsourced and clearly controversial, I'll keep an eye on it. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Taylor

Vanity piece by a tech blogger. Further, not supported any sources. Please review for noteworthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickerdeal (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith (news reporter)

Hi The title for my entry on Wikipedia (originally put up by someone else, not me!) says that I am a news reporter. I have corrected the body of the text to make clear that this is no longer the case but can't edit the title. I am now a full-time author and screenwriter and would prefer that to be in the title rather than the now inaccurate news reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickwsmith (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The difficulty here is that we choose the disambiguation based on what a person is best known for, rather than necessarily what they do now - the question is whether or not someone would be most likely to recognise you as an author or as a journalist. To be honest, your work as a journalist made considerable impact, so the choice is a bit harder than normal. But I'll raise in on the talk page, and I'm inclined to go with your suggestion, although it may warrant a bit more discussion just to check that everyone is happy with the move (which I expect to be the case). - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do RS refer to Smith? Maybe provide 1 or 2 here and then we are good to go. Or just go ahead and go :). --Malerooster (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Medical University

In 2011, a CMU student stabbed another CMU student and faculty member in a CMU dorm. The stabbed student died from her wounds. The assailant was assigned to one year of psychiatric care. This material has multiple verifiable sources. Another editor on the CMU talk page cited WP:BLPCRIME as a reason for keeping the information out of the article, but from my understanding that only applies to those accused of crimes. I'd like to get additional input because I think it belongs in the article, even if names aren't included. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 18:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material was properly removed; WP:BLPCRIME applies to someone who is reported to have perpetrated a crime and who is relatively unknown. I would read this to cover any bad acts that have obvious criminal consequences, and that includes stabbing. If you think WP:1E is satisfied (against WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, there may be grounds for a separate article; I haven't looked into that possibility and can't say whether that's the case. See Murder of Eve Carson for one case that passes that bar. The murder doesn't belong on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article, though. So in any event, the presence of the stabbing in the Caribbean Medical University article is certainly WP:UNDUE. JFHJr (㊟) 03:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Johnson

This article is about me, Beth Johnson, former mayor of Delta, British Columbia, Canada. It states, incorrectly, that I was elected on the NDP party line. This is untrue, and I would like to rephrase the sentence to say, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocanada73 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking a source for party - it goes. Collect (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin A. Armstrong

Previous BLPN thread

I'm having a little trouble with this article, in particular with 77TellTheTruth88 (talk · contribs). The same kind of edits are recurring, and they present problems of undue weight, reliable sources, original research and unverifiable claims (sometimes incorrectly attributed to a source), WP:POV, and even a fringe idea or two. Generally, this editor has not discussed on relevant threads at user talk and article talk pages. Several discussions appear in both places. Any eyes, hands, and second opinions on the article would be appreciated.

I'd also like to point out that the same editor has uploaded PDFs onto Wikipedia (see file contribs), and cites to them in the article. I'm not entirely comfortable with this approach to sourcing with certain publications. Thoughts, anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view JFHJr has done a lot of great work to clean up this article over the past few days. I also agree that 77TellTheTruth88 (talk · contribs) has not yet fully grasped some of the fundamentals of how this process is supposed to work. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Kasparov

The user named "Toccata quarta" keeps deleting the fact that Kasparov is of Armenian and Jewish descent. He claims that ethnicity should not be implied in the introduction of the articles, yet at the same time he keeps the sentence that says "Kasparov is a Russian chess grandmaster" on. So, please, either make sure nothing is really said about his ethnicity, or let the truth be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabkhach (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Truth'? Kasparov is of Russian (& formerly Soviet) nationality, and a Russian (& formerly Soviet) Chess grandmaster. His parent's ethnicity is described in the article. Why do you think that it is so important to put it into the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:MOSBIO. Ethnicity should not be in the lede unless it is the reason for the person's notability. --Malerooster (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. VanderSloot

The above article Is being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

Here is a summary as to why this matter is being brought to the BLP Noticeboard:

An editor posted a revised version of Frank L. VanderSloot, curing what he claims were violations of WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research (the right-hand version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=518705766&oldid=518703432, with the edit summary "See Talk. "Synthesis and sources").

That revised version was reverted three times, by two different editors.

The question for this Noticeboard is: Based on the fact that this article adversely reflects on a Living Person, with possible use of faulty references and original research, which version should made live in the current Wikipedia?— as discussion goes on within the 'WP:No original research/Noticeboard. Please use that noticeboard to discuss this question.

Note: "If an issue crosses boundaries, . . . choose one or the other, and if necessary, post a very brief message at the other board to point interested editors to the first noticeboard." Wikipedia:Noticeboards#List_of_Wikipedia.27s_noticeboards

GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph L. Goldstein

Joseph L. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP that's short on inline cites and long on listings of research papers. Recent edits [7] suggest that a COI account is currently involved. I suppose one of the questions is whether papers by a Nobel laureate are all assumed to be notable, and therefor such long listings, unaccompanied by third party sources, are acceptable. My thinking is that lists be cut and prose be expanded. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020008; http://www.screendaily.com/news/production/michael-edelstein-takes-international-tv-post-at-nbc-universal/5014514.article

[2] ttp://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/international/europe/nbcu-replaces-odonoghue/5014520.article

[3] ttp://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/international/europe/nbcu-replaces-odonoghue/5014520.article

[4] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410975/awards

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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