Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqmia (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 13 January 2013 (→‎Mohammed Nizamul Huq). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    Lynette Nusbacher

    This BLP covers a person who may have changed gender status and name. Two users seem intent on outing them by posting items on the article and talk page. Could someone take a look and see if we need to refactor some of this? I'm concerned we're using unreliable sources to out a living person. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there evidence that Nusbacher prefers this aspect of her history not to be discussed publicly? In the abstract, a sex change is nothing shameful. We ought to treat it as private if it hasn't been widely covered in secondary sources, and especially if the subject wants it to be treated as private. Where do things stand in those terms? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. GiantSnowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has already been dealt with: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive147#Lynette Nusbacher The private medical and personal aspects shouldn't be included for obvious reasons, but the subject's highly notable and widely covered previous identity is appropriate for inclusion. There is no rational, policy-based reason to exclude the former name when the person appeared on television and authored notable books under that name. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there are no WP:RS which confirms the sex change. The Sun is definitely not reliable. GiantSnowman 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you google [aryeh nusbacher lynette] you will find countless references. The wikipedia article states that until 2006 her books were published under her former name. And her own website is tagged with "Aryeh Nusbacher". So this does not seem to be a secret. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem necessary to provide sources here when Insomesia is the only editor who is having trouble finding them. There are sources in the article now; there is the source he tendentiously reverted yesterday with a phony edit summary, and there is even a RS mentioned on the Talk page that covers the actual gender change. This is beginning to smell like WP:IDHT. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Nusbacher has verified with OTRS that she is User:NetNus. The evidence that she wants this to be private can be found at Special:Contributions/NetNus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP griped about the redirect here,[1] so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could say "It", if you prefer. Meanwhile, you need to figure out a way to draw a line between Aryeh's disappearance in 2006 and Lynette's emergence in 2007, and whether either one qualifies as being "notable". Got anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I'll make this as simple as possible. There are articles by/about 'Aryeh Nusbacher'. There are articles by/about 'Lynette Nusbacher'. There are no articles (that I can see) confirming they are the same person. Please read WP:BURDEN and then provide some WP:RS so we can WP:V this. If reliable sources cannot be found then any and all references to 'Aryeh' will be removed from the article on Lynette. GiantSnowman 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is sourcing to connect the two identities. First compare this [2] with this [3]. And here is a mainstream news media source covering the "transition": [4] ► Belchfire-TALK 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:OR to compare the website past & present, and are IBL News 'mainstream' (or more importantly reliable?) GiantSnowman 15:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree strongly with GS on this, given the post from Phil Bridger about OTRS identification etc. It stays out unless there is a consensus to put it in, something obviously lacking now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you need two separate articles, with a dividing line between 2006 and 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Amazon lists a number of books under Aryeh,[5] including some that are claimed in the Lynette article to be written by Lynette. If wikipedia is going to pretend these are two separate persons, then we can't claim authorship by Lynett when the published author was Aryeh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Purely as a FYI Phil: Wikipedia:ANI#BLP redirect for delete and salt. KTC (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A further FYI is that the redirect was created over 2 years ago,[6] with a rather matter-of-fact explanation for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just reading your IPW essay. No "perhaps" about it. This is definitely a conflict of interest situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Insisting on strong sourcing for a BLP is simply following policy, please AGF. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)It baffled me too, until a user in this section confirmed that this Lynette is trying to mold the article based on a personal agenda rather than on observable facts. I thought that kind of thing was against the rules. So I'm still a bit baffled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've just nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration of sex-change/name w/o consensus

    The fact of sex-change and previous name has been restored. It's fine that there's a better source for it, but the existence of a source is not sufficient. WP:BLP makes it clear that edits of this sort require consensus, which is manifestly lacking. Key passage: write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" -- something that obviously comes into play per Phil Bridger's posts above about OTRS identification and Nusbacher's own expressed preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Boldness is my method. Once people see a very good source such as Palgrave then consensus comes quickly. I think the new source is the final nail in this discussion; that it is indeed sufficient.
    Regarding privacy of the individual; we are not talking about a reclusive scholar about whom any revelation is hurtful. Rather, we are talking about a person who sought the public light—who appeared repeatedly on television programs and taught the royal princes at Sandhurst, a very prominent school. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to replace the surname with the correct pronoun, "she", where appropriate. I don't think that that's a matter under dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sure, we can -- but what about should? And what about the bit that says consensus is required for this sort of edit? I'm frankly pretty surprised at how this is going. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised that you are surprised—the Palgrave source came out of the blue. However, the new source was a game-changer; it was the sword that cut the Gordian knot. As such, any restoration of text based on the new source did not require consensus: at WP:BLP, the section called "Restoring deleted content" tells us that "if [disputed text] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Of course you can see we had "significant change" because of the new Palgrave tertiary source, based on work by scholarly editors led by William Rubinstein. The guideline says that the burden of proof is on the person who restores text. I think I supplied ample proof with the Palgrave book. Please forgive me for not pausing to form consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's leave the royal princes out of this. Nusbacher chose to teach at Sandhurst, but I'm sure she didn't choose her students. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A little reading is also a dangerous thing.

    So the problem is this:

    Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 cites its sources, at the foot of the article. They are "JC", which denotes The Jewish Chronicle and "online sources". The datelines of the JC articles are given. Because the JC archives are on the WWW, it's simple to go and look them up.

    The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.

    So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article.

    So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.

    The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.

    Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's over-egging somewhat. It would be one thing to exclude the information on the grounds of BLP and privacy, but let's not do it by feigning stupidity. Everyone who has looked at the sourcing knows very well whether there was an operation or not (that is, by the ultimate acid-test, the sourcing is reliable and doesn't leave realistic room for doubt). It's certainly not true to say that the Sun article is unsure on the matter - that's just based on ignoring the syntax of the source.
    There is a genuine issue about whether the material should, on balance, be excluded. But that's purely about the degree to which we should protect the privacy of the subject. Formerip (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pure conjecture. Uncle G concludes that "online sources" means Wikipedia without actually knowing, well, anything at all. He makes that leap purely based on Nusbacher's complaint of Wikipedia being the top search result on Google, but there's no reason at all to believe that Jolle & the Rubinsteins relied on Google. The unfounded assumptions are stacked up at least three deep, and counting.
    Meanwhile...
    "WILLIAM D. RUBENSTEIN is Professor of Modern History at the University of Aberystwyth, UK and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society."
    "MICHAEL JOLLES is a member of the Council of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. "
    "HILARY L. RUBENSTEIN is a former Research Fellow in History at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a member of the Council of the Navy Records Society. "
    ...which adds up to credibility. So, Uncle G... what are your credentials? ► Belchfire-TALK 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G has better than credentials: he has sound reasoning from evidence. That was not pure conjecture on Uncle G's behalf. It was analysis, and Occam's Razor dictates that we're seeing a lazy Wikipedia-based entry in a biographical dictionary. Argument from authority (that the editors of the Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews have titles and therefore haven't lifted their entry from WP) does not do much to argue against Uncle G's analysis. NetNus (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His "sound reasoning" is anything but; he put blinders on the academics. He applied an artificial constraint of his own device which involves the academics failing to see such online sources as The Sun tabloid revelation from 2007, the 2005 Telegraph birth announcement, Melanie J. Bright's 1997 master's thesis thanking Aryeh Nusbacher, Nusbacher's adoption registry entry, various archived Nusbacher blog pages, the difference between the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio February 2007 for Aryeh Nusbacher and the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio April 2008 for Lynette Nusbacher, someone's blog entry about the comfort provided by a gender change discussion with Lynette Nusbacher, and the Internet Movie Database biography. All of these online sources were published a year or more before the Palgrave book, so they were available to the scholars. Calling the book a "Bumper Book" is needlessly petty; it is a compendium of quick references for people, institutions and events important to British Jewry, nothing more and nothing less. The authors assert in the Introduction that "The aim of this work is to provide a comprehensive reference tool... as well as biographical information about a large number of Jewish achievers and notable figures." The three main scholars are listed along with John Cooper, Stephen W. Massil, Jonathan A. Romain, Edgar A. Samuel, and the Jewish Historical Society of England. This is not some fanciful childrens' book. It is a scholarly reference work. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also getting a little insulted that the subject of the article as well as that bit from the Palgrave book is under some kind of delusion that because there were previously no Wikipedia ready sources (partially because of the editing of their own website/blog/university profile page) that this somehow means that no one out in the world is qualified to publish the information. Do you know why Wikipedia editors are required to use acceptable sources? Because unlike the writers of the Palgrave book, we're not all qualified historians, researchers, scientists, etc etc. They're allowed to go out and do their own original research, we're not; that's how "sources" that we can use are produced. It is getting extremely insulting, some of the tip-toeing being done on talk pages like editors have to pretend certain things are true/untrue here. Occam's Razor, as you put it, states that we all know perfectly well what is true and that all which is left is to source things to BLP standards. Not whatever claims/views you would personally like to hold true to. Sorry if that all comes off a little harsher than would be desired, NetNus, but you've been coming pretty close to boldface lies (through statement or omission) on the topic. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that's a bit harsh. My participation post 2007 has largely involved insisting on sourcing rather than contributing autobiography. Where I have added to the article it has been to put something verifiable and, generally, sourced (as my Wiki skills have improved) such as the Pink List material. Where I have remained silent it has been to avoid autobiography. If I were, for instance, to put the reference to Erwin Rommel (on the current version of the page) into context by insisting that the Ritter von Leeb and Heinz Guderian were both more important in my analysis of the German influence on Israeli mechanised doctrine than Rommel it would be accurate, verifiable from my MA thesis, and probably not welcome. As it stands, there is a statement which future compilers of biographical dictionaries may use to exaggerate Rommel's importance in my theories of jazz warfare. It is, perhaps, a Wikiparadox. I am, to some extent, damned if I participate and damned if I don't. NetNus (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, that is something precisely along the lines of welcome contribution, and there is a specific way that editors like yourself (specifically, those that might have contributions to articles about themselves) can do so without drifting into COI territory: the talk page. I would love it if people in your situation would more frequently bring information to the talk page and assist with proper sourcing. It really doesn't happen a lot, and it's even more of a shame how frequent that people just go ahead editing their own entries. I can think of several bridges that I've unfortunately burned with people that I might have previously enjoyed speaking with, due to the fact that I've been at the wrong place at the wrong time and been compelled to call them out on nonsense that they've either edited in or out of articles on themselves. I'm pretty sure at one point Natasha Vita-More would have personally slapped me.
    You're only damned if you do the things that you shouldn't and don't do what you should. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of Jewish Chronicle were definitely checked, they might have seen the Sun article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of A Stranger Among Us, they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and proceed to ignore the privacy issue completely -- or, if that doesn't sound right, decide to ignore the subject's clear wishes. Why, exactly? I don't think anyone favoring inclusion has yet given a reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, it can also be said that no-one has made a very strong case for excluding it for privacy reasons, and that's really where the burden lies. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject's expressed wishes do not amount to a strong case?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not in themselves. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I think you should not be surprised at not having won many people over just by exclaiming "isn't it obvious". I doubt it will be obvious to everyone. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've said "It's obvious". I've said, the fact that the subject wishes to treat this information as private is a good reason to treat it as private. *Not* providing a reason to override her wishes is surely the weak case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy and precedent say we don't just blithely follow the subject's wishes. That's not to say we should never follow them, but what is it about this case in particular? Formerip (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When did this become Stalin-a-pedia? This is a public figure - a television personality - so there's a fairly limited range of potential privacy issues that could be legitimately raised. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FormerIP, why are you (by all appearances) so reluctant to give a reason for overriding the subject's wishes? I've asked for a reason several times now, without success. Once again: can you please say why we should do so? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You're assuming I have made up my mind about it, which I haven't. What I am trying to do is get you (or someone) to articulate their thinking about why it should be removed. I don't think "because it's what the subject wants" is enough on it's own. I do think there are other considerations. For instance, I think WP has a social responsibility to reflect the world reasonably accurately, and there's a tension between that and too readily pretending not to notice things about the world, even though there can sometimes be legitimate reasons for doing so. I would also wonder, in this case, whether there is any secret to be kept. I would guess this is something that the rats under the sink at Sandhurst know about. The subject may wish it were otherwise, but can we really help in any event? Formerip (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject was a publicity-seeking television show expert, a talking head for military history topics. The subject was also a prominent writer of books, articles and essays. The subject allowed interviews by news reporters, specifically for the Jewish Chronicle. This person blogs for Huffington Post. This person is not the shy and retiring type who hides from publicity and shuns the spotlight. This person is not the type who we try to protect from overexposure, following the guideline at WP:HARM. No, we cannot hide our collective heads in the sand and let a biography subject chop off more than half of their illustrious career, and a majority of their biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good argument as to why her article should not be deleted. But no-one gives up all aspects of their right to privacy just by appearing on TV. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Given Uncle G's work I think its painfully obvious that the august body of researchers used faulty sourcing including the then Wikipedia article. Per WP:RS we need to throw out these sources and likely post to the talk page why each is in turn quoting each other and they are all faulty. Per BLP we need strong sourcing to make exceptional claims. We don't have that sourcing and possibly the article could be deleted again. Insomesia (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The beliefs as to what "online sources" means is pure speculation. There's no other way to put it. If looking at two variations of the subject's own site constitutes original research, then applying any further definition to "online sources" certainly is.
    The individual's wishes on the matter are also not an overriding factor. While I can see how these changes could be troubling to the individual/user, I can't claim that I do or should care. None of the subjects of wikipedia have a blanket right to dictate the content of their respective articles; this is down to sources. This is even more down to sources when there is clearly something being omitted from the article. Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G's "research" is flawed in that he assumes right from the start that the three Palgrave academics used poor judgement in assessing the online sources in front of them, which Uncle G says must have included only Wikipedia, a ridiculous and artificial limitation. Insomesia's faith in Uncle G's argument is not compelling.
    We place our highest trust in scholarly works, of which the Palgrave biographical dictionary is a fine example, written by three academics including William Rubinstein. There is no reason to "throw out" this very strong source. It is the linchpin for everything else that makes sense in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who's "research" is flawed. I did as Uncle G suggested and discovered something rather odd. This "fine example" (as you put it) of a tertiary source (which is what it is) can't seem to, either plainly state what the online sources are...or, if Uncle G is correct and it is "The JC.com" website...can't seem to get their dating straight for verifying the information from their work. If it is the JC, they were off by one or two days on every date they gave but one [7] (you have to put the name of the subject of the article into the search and hit enter). There seems to be no close match to March 28, 2008. A little more than odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC & other discussions

    I have started an RfC on this issue -- please see the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    see also

    Mohammed Nizamul Huq

    I was asked on my talk page to look at the article, and the article looked like a hit piece to me. So I stubbed it[8] I would appreciate input if this was the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that in the light of [9] which was one of the main sources for the article, Nasim's notability arises from being a Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice who was involved with a major political and judicial scandal. Hence I feel the contents of the article was quite legitimate. I don't think it went out of its way to criticise the subject. It just relayed information that was found in reputable journals like the Washington Post, the Economist, and the Huffington Post. If anyone would like to add other noteworthy information about the judge that has been published in reputable journals, I think they should add to what was already there, and the stub should be reverted to the previous article prior this. Aminul802 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have some comments here please? It's been more than five days. I'd like to reinstate my version [10] before Darkness Shines reduced this to a stub. Thank you for your assistance! Aminul802 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The old version of the article didn't look negative. Rather dull, in truth. Facts are facts.--Auric talk 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'll renew the old article. Thank you for your input. Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Auric, are you sure the old version didn't look negative? I've counted the sentence of old one, which is currently reverted by Aminul802. There I found 45 words to describe who is Mohammed Nizamul Huq, other 190 words explain how bad he is!! Does it follow WP:BLPSTYLE rule? It clearly says --
    Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to
    So I think it should be reverted to DS's version.--Freemesm (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative, perhaps, but not unsourced.--Auric talk 15:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't it enough to tell it violates WP:BLPSTYLE rule? Because it states that-
    Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; --Freemesm (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any "disparaging" or attacking. I admit the sourcing of the scandal section needs work, but the Complaint section seems sound. The problem, as I see it, is that there simply isn't enough positive material available to balance the negative. --Auric talk 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Auric, for your reasonable opinion.--Freemesm (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undid the version, as this discussion has not finished yet. Moreover Mr. Aminul cited there news blog's reference without mentioning that. It is WP:NEWSBLOG vio. I'm trying to make this article neutral. Please provide input according to wiki rules.--Freemesm (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Freemesm, I don't think you've understood what Auric is saying that there's not enough positive material in the article. I think he's saying that there's not enough positive material available. Hence the article sounding somewhat negative is understandable. I personally see no reason you should be editing Aminul's material out, all of which is well-referenced. Your reference to WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't make sense here. The policy says that "These may be acceptable sources." It doesn't prohibit their use, and here I think an economist blog post, which I know to have high editorial oversight, is perfectly acceptable. Aminul had waited three days after Auric's approving comment regarding his edits before reverting Darkness Shines deletions. It seems very unreasonable for you to undo them at a moments notice. First allow for other editors, like myself add their contributions. I will revert the article to the state Aminul left it, and we can work on that basis. Tariqmia (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    popping up from newly created account (Mr. Tariqmia's account has created today!) and reverting any edit don't follow the WP:CIVIL. Whatever, at first you must try to understand, what does WP:NEWSBLOG says. Off course, economics blog publishes high profile articles. But If you site this kind of blog, you must state that it is from a news blog site. Because WP:NEWSBLOG says--
    Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.
    I think it is clear now. Another thing you mention here I think he's saying that there's not enough positive material available. Hence the article sounding somewhat negative is understandable. I personally see no reason you should be editing Aminul's material out, all of which is well-referenced. . My advice is, please read the WP:BLPSTYLE. It will clarify your concept about why only negative materials should not be in an article, no matter whether the blaming part is well cited or not. Thank you and welcome to wikipedia. :) --Freemesm (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Freemesm, I refer you to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. You should be WP:AGF with him/her. As for your arguments, I don't believe there is much use arguing with you here. I'm going to RfC this. Can a third party comment please? Aminul802 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Aminul, please don't attack personally. I'm not attacking newcomer, but trying to tell him about wiki editing procedure.--Freemesm (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Freemesm, I agree with Aminul. Tariqmia (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Tariqmia,have you read my previous comment? Did it seems rough to you? I'm just trying to tell you that in which way you did mistake and how you can over come it. Even I Welcome you in your talk page. How do you agree with Aminul? If you need any help, please knock me on my talk Page. Wish you having good time on wikipedia.-Freemesm (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Freemesm, As a newcomer, I am taken back with the comment "suspicious activity from newly created account" that I noted on the revision history. Aside from that, if you think the article is negative, it will help if you can add more positive information. The public needs to know all relevant information. I find Aminul802 additions well-referenced. Tariqmia (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Tariqmia, welcome to Wiki! I'm sorry that you've had a bit of a rough entry. Sometimes disagreements can get out of hand. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. I look forward to your future edits. Best wishes, Aminul802 (ta lk) 06:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw, I've RfC'd here [11]. Aminul802 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here you call for RfC and on the other hand you've reverted the article to controversial edition! oh, great!--Freemesm (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been locked for a week in the stubbed version. I've removed the RfC from the article talk page based on Aminul802's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2012 Delhi gang rape case

    2012 Delhi gang rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • - Page moved/renamed to include victim name

    Hi folks, some thoughtful eyes are needed rapidly on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case&redirect=no ... the name of the victim has previously been withheld, with conflicting reports on whether the family wants it released or not. The page has just been moved (renamed) to include in the title the alleged name of the (recently deceased) victim; it's worth checking whether this is either accurate and/or advisable. (The BBC seem to be holding back on releasing it, at least). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported in today's BBC News article "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published. He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape." (my emphasis) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Page moved back (to old title) by User:Salvio giuliano. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And moved back again by User:Abhinavname, who I think is now move-warring as they moved it earlier today as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Page seems to be returned to the above title again - if you click on the logs link in the template above you can see the moves and that it has now been move protected until the outcome of the discussion on the talkpage. Please join in and opine there, thanks - Youreallycan 07:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Burghoff

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

    A new account is editing Gary Burghoff (known as Radar O'Reilly from M*A*S*H to most of us) to change the middle name from Richard to Rich. Two sources (IMDB and TMZ, neither ideal but at least usable) use "Richard". The new account (Cartoonistguy47 (talk · contribs)) has changed it four times in the past two days, with reverts from myself and United States Man (talk · contribs), claiming both a personal relationship with Burghoff, and that Burghoff's book of poetry are sufficient to verify this. I read the first chapter online using the Amazon preview feature, the book does indeed state that Burghoff's mother's maiden name is Rich (the alleged source of the name) but says nothing about a) it being the source of his name or b) it actually being his name. Some assistance from the noticeboard would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal communications are not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, see WP:RS. If Mr Burghoff wants this corrected, he should use the process set out at WP:BIOSELF to contact Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't edit BLPs very much, would the IMDB and TMZ be considered reliable for these purposes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No - IMDB is a user-created source, like WIkipedia, and TMZ is an online tabloid.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe NNDB is also user-generated and unreliable (all y'all probably know better than I). I am in favour of simply deleting the middle name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I removed the middle name pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Rich, of course. IMDB isn't much more reliable than Wikipedia, so of course we wouldn't consult it in a situation like this where there is some dispute. Here's a newspaper article that explicitly says the middle name is Rich: [12]. It's important to recognize that a lot of new sources that aren't careful with tihs are probably taking whatever is on IMDB, and it is easy to see how IMDB could get a detail like this wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ...I'm assuming that by clicking "edit", and then adding my text, I can jump in the fray. I suppose no middle name is better than a wrong one. But Gary is very proud of the "Rich" family name. I've contacted support at whatever link was posted for me, and will attempt no more edits until I can source a so-called reliable source, even though I felt I gave enough avenues for verification of what is, really, a very small and simple edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoonistguy47 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is standard practice to remove disputed material pending proper sources or OTRS action. The reason that this is not a "small and simple edit" is that there appears to be at least one reliable source that verifies "Richard", we have none (leaving aside your personal communications, which, as we have indicated, are not reliable for Wikipedia purposes) that support "Rich".--ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the reliable source that says "Richard"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your patience. I don't know if Wikipedia:OTRS is the right venue to help. Wikipedia has a policy that many find strange. We don't always provide facts but are forced to provide information that other sources have published. It may be a pain, but Mr. Burghoff may wish to contact our source sites to correct their information. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may help as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider TMZ unreliable for something like this. "Rich" is of course short for Richard, but we don't know if it's actually a short form of a common name, or a unique name based on a family history. I'm still inclined to leave it out, pending more sources. Of the ones we have, the Toledo Blade article is the best, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk. More sources would definitely help. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A newspaper clearly stating someone's middle name—in the absence of any RS to the contrary—isn't enough? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a case where we can use a birth certificate being a primary document?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have access to it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor claiming to be Burghoff's friend, isn't enough to keep his prefferd version. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. Newspaper articles should be enough, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Done Done. Leave it out as contentious, trivial to the article content, waste of editing time, wait for sources, etc, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it contentious? Who thinks it's "Richard"? We have a newspaper confirming that it is "Rich". I'm trying to get some clarification on what the reliable source is that says it is "Richard"; can someone please include the citation here? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only source a found for "Rich:" [13]. I found these for "Richard:" [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. The problem with these, though, are that they are not reliable sources. So "Rich," since it came from a newspaper, seems like the best alternative. United States Man (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Toledo Blade article is sufficient. It is from 1985, and it seems that it draws directly from an interview with Burghoff. "Gary Burghoff: An Update", November 18, 1985. I think it is the best source for the question of middle name, in its humble way. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, looking further into it, I can see the Toledo Blade, printing a wire article taken from Knight News Service, got some things wrong, such as the birth year (1952 vs. 1943) and the small Wisconsin town for high school. The small town is not Delhaven, it is Delavan. Burghoff attended Delavan-Durien High School for three years, a fact that should be added to the bio. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ech...given the difficulty in sourcing this and the "dueling of basement sources" going on, I'm in favour of simply leaving it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the the Toledo Blade, TV Guide [19] has also listed Burghoff's middle name as Rich. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Thank you all for diligent searches. I changed it back to 'Rich' only. Although more sources differ, it seems consensus and the more reliable sources assert this name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck Hagel

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

    Perhaps Chuck Hagel needs protection re edits like this. Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    yes there continue to be repeated attacks that say or suggest he stole elections in Nebraska using his former ownership of a company that made vote counting machines. No RS has ever made the allegation. The Senate Committee that gets mention looked at an entirely different issues and said Hagel was clear. Suggestions that a man is a criminal fall under BLP. The latest episode was a few hours ago. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BLPCAT and theological labels

    I have an issue at Fred Phelps where he has been identified as a Hyper-Calvinist by reliable sources, but has not self-identified as one (at least that's not in the article). He has been placed in Category:American Hyper-Calvinist clergy on the basis of reliable sources identifying him with this theology based on his own statements (he has said things which are hyper-Calvinist). Does WP:BLPCAT require Phelps to say "I'm a hyper-Calvinist," or is it sufficient for him to make hyper-Calvinist statements? --JFHutson (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The former. "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." --WP:CAT/R (guideline) (This would, presumably, allow one to argue for including him in Baptist-related categories but I wouldn't suggest it.) --j⚛e deckertalk 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'd also apply this to the Infobox. The main text is fine. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he doesn't self-identify, he shouldn't be included. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. He's actually already in a Baptist cat, and they don't seem to mind. --JFHutson (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Warren

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

    Elizabeth Warren's article currently has a large section talking about controversy surrounding her claiming Cherokee ancestry. To me it seems like it is placing undue weight on the controversy. It has also gotten coverage today on LegalInsurrection, a biggish blog. Relevant sections can be found here, and, for some reason, here. Despite already being discussed in a couple places, starting this section here as well since the article could use some more eyes that are used to dealing with BLP stuff. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed to what I consider on investigation of the sources of any NPOV value - lots of front page worthless links and undue stuff there - I expect there will be a reverting of my efforts as I have seen there is a lot of strongly opinoned contributors in this sector - Youreallycan 07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FPSRussia

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

    One of the members of the FPSRussia team has died in the last week and its currently being worked into the article by various IPs and users over the last couple of days. I attempted to clean it up and make it a little less muder/suicide neutral but ultimately decided its probably got no place in the article at all currently. The subject is one of the team who work on FPSRussia (the article mistakenly says its the alter-ego of Kyle Myers, in fact FPSRussia is a small team of which he is the front-man) and so qualifies as a BDP issue, but he is not really notable in himself (Kyle Myers being the only notable member of FPSRussia by himself), as its one event it probably falls under BLP1E and I have scrubbed it on that basis. I feel its going to get sticky though, FPSRussia is effectively a pro-gun channel, and one of its staff dying from a gunshot (murder or suicide) probably is worth a footnote in the article, but only at the point where people start to discuss it. Seeking any other opinions please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure how someone, who is dead, would fall under a discussion of a Biography of a living persons. FPSRussia is a youtube channel and also would not fall under BLP. The person murdered was the gun supplier/manager of the FPSRussia YouTube channel (From what I have read in WP:RS). I came across the article yesterday after reading about the murder it is clear that channel is notable based on the 10s of millions of views and the amount of interest in the death. There are a lot of IP edits going on right now from the conspiracy people, but I believe the information to be relevant to the article and I also believe there should be semi-protection put into place. You will note that my first time editing the article as last night so I have "no dog in this race". Reverting your edit seems appropriate. PeterWesco (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: The article has since been reworked to be simply an article about FPSRussia and no longer even categorized as a BLP. PeterWesco (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FYI... BLP policies apply to the recently deceased. Now you know. ► Belchfire-TALK 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Saputo Incorporated and Lino Saputo

    The article on the cheese magnate's company contains an allegation of mafia connections based on a news report of a defamation suit whose resolution I haven't been able to discover. I'm not that good on Canadian/Italian news sources, but obviously this is a sensitive matter. Interested parties should discuss this at Talk:Saputo Incorporated. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Krugman

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

    Krugman is a public figure who is hated by some elements of the right wing. We see this reflected in his article, where for some years now, there have been edit wars to include as much negative material into the article as possible, no matter how trivial. There is an ongoing dispute, where we have from a 31 minute podcast with Gary Becker (from the anti Keynesian Chicago school), 13 words about Krugman saying that he is not a 'serious economist'. Some users wish to include a quote of those 13 words in full, together with commentary describing the quote.[20] In this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that's undue weight. To settle this matter, I pose this question to the people at WP:BLPN 'is the edit undue weight?' I will go along with whatever people here decide. FurrySings (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He is controversial - and there is very little about any controversy in the BLP as it currently exists. Opinions cited as opinions are generally accepted in BLPs, and frankly the idea that all negative opinions are "hatred" from the "right wing" is silly. I recall Daniel Okrent (who is not a "right winger") making quite critical comments about Krugman. Right now, roughly 1% of the entire article contains criticism, which is a teensy bit low for such a controversial figure, indeed. In fact, the current article is reminiscent of Lives of the Saints entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no trouble with the article containing critical material on Krugman. But this sort of cherry-picking is exactly the sort of thing that WP:UNDUE is meant to prevent. If we had a good secondary source that provided a convincing analysis of economists' opinions and summarized those opinions by saying that many prominent economists had concluded that Krugman is no longer a serious economists, then fine. But an off-hand remark by an economist who disagrees with Krugman's position is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The controversy definitely needs to be recorded, but these little nuggets of academic backbiting surely do not deserve to be taken seriously. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas -- such an opinion would mean that even less than 1% of this BLP would be critical. That you find criticism to be mere "academic backbiting" is a nice exemplar of the problem, indeed. Collect (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong venue. This isn't a BLP issue. If (-IF-) it belongs anywhere other than the article Talk page, it belongs at NPOV/N. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect, I've watched the econ people for years. These comments aren't substantive criticism; they are simply adherents of a rival school of economics sniping at one of the major Keynesian figures of the time. I would hope that these fellows have bothered to publish something that rises above catty comments, and I'm equally sure that if you go to enough effort you can find people who think that new classical econ is a crock and who are willing to make catty comments about them. By all means, include substantive disagreement; I'm just saying that these one-liners aren't substantive. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This board is the correct place to get more eyes on BLPs that have real world implications. Insomesia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the page you're posting on: Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. Care to explain what is defamatory or libelous here? (Good luck with that.) This is an NPOV matter that is scarcely 4 days old. It belongs on the Talk page. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." In dealing with the content you add across multiple articles now I find it very helpful to have more eyes on the additions. I look forward to the day when I no longer have any question that the edits are NPOV and well-sourced. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Start at the beginning: "...defamatory or libelous..." That's the first threshold which must be crossed before we begin to consider "repeatedly inserted". There's nothing defamatory or libelous at issue here, so this is really just a simple content dispute that belongs at the article's Talk page. This whole discussion is nothing but WP:FORUMSHOPPING because the OP's arguments aren't getting any traction in the correct venue. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Belchfire. We enforce BLP policies on BLP's and when someone with a long history of causing problems and filling up discussions with personal attacks is involved it usually helps to get more eyes on the issue. If you are too impassioned to edit the article you might find something else to do. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Belchfire. We edit with restraint and avoid gossip and catty remarks on BLPs. Insomesia (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second FurrySings concerns. Wikipedia seems to be going to great lengths to discredit the subject of this BLP. The entire criticisms section needs to go per NPOV. Insomesia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1% of a hagiography != "great lengths to discredit" Krugman. Collect (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly gossipy comments that should be cleaned out. Insomesia (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crap is still being restored to the article. I've removed it once (with an edit summary noting the discussion here), but this has already been reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nomoskedasticity's most recent reversion of the Becker quote referred me here. As the item under is neither defamatory nor libelous I don't understand why the discussion has moved here and disturbed the continuity of the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Krugman#.22undue_weight_for_off_hand_remark.22_dismissal_of_Gary_Becker_statement.3F but as long as this discussion *remains* on this page I'm not going to make an issue of it.

    I have undone User:Nomoskedasticity's removal of the Becker quote. If he, or anyone, removes the quote I ask that they make a clear, complete, *ad hominum-free* explanation of their action that addresses all relevant justifications, from both above and Talk:Paul Krugman, for including the quote. If they claim NPOV violation please address the proof that has already offered that a NPOV violation has *not* occurred. If a claim of "aren't substantive" is made please address previous justifications the significance of Becker's opinion. Deicas (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkstar1st performed re-adding of the quote but my request, above, stands. Deicas (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Krugman's blog/column is self described as political, the comment about his departure from serious economics by a notable peer deserves it's proper weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    At some level it really doesn't matter: Krugman surely doesn't give a shit about crap being posted about him on Wikipedia -- he's had a great career, makes a lot of money, etc. Anyway the article is so long that no-one is likely to notice the crap anyway. It's more a question of whether Wikipedia will continue to allow this sort of partisan editing. Probably it will... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean like this partisan editing? Arzel (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zad68 has accused me of being engaged in an edit war over this issue. Unsurprisingly, I resent the accusation. When does it become appropriate to seek dispute resolution on the topic of the Becker quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Becker quote is being taken out of context; see Talk:Paul Krugman#What Becker actually said for discussion and a transcript of the passage in question. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As discussion of the Paul Krugman article seems to have moved/been moved here, to biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman, from Talk:Paul_Krugman -- is is reasonable & proper for me to request that an administrator editprotect Talk:Paul_Krugman with a view toward keeping all the discussion in one location? How would I go about making such a request? Deicas (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Zad68 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "No"? "No" what? I don't understand -- please clarify? Deicas (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any possible on-topic use of this BLPN discussion has now come to a close, so I will answer this question for you on your own User Talk page. Zad68 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    user:KTC has reverted Paul Krugman to the 25 Dec version "before all this [disputation] started" and "protected from editing until January 20, 2013 or until disputes have been resolved". As this reversion removed several distinct edits, (e.g. Enron section removal, 2003 Economist citation, Becker quote, New York review of books citation, etc.) -- with a view toward maintaining discussion clarity: is it possible & appropriate to create one section of BLPN for each item under dispute? Deicas (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Read the big blue box titled "Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard" at the top of this page to understand what kinds of issues this board is for. Zad68 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FurrySings started the discussion here at 15:26, 8 January 2013. Per my statement above "User:Nomoskedasticity's most recent reversion of the Becker quote referred me here. As the item under is neither defamatory nor libelous I don't understand why the discussion has moved here and disturbed the continuity of the discussion at ..." Talk:Paul_Krugman. If this discussion shouldn't be occuring here, at BLPN, perhaps someone can persuade the BLPN administrator to kick us off this page? How should that request be made? Deicas (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Krugman is a BLP subject. The issue is posted here because his article is being used as a repository for various negative criticisms that likely don't belong in his article at all. Insomesia (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanson (band)

    Am I right in thinking that a lot of the information in this paragraph - Hanson_(band)#Biographical_information - shouldn't be in a wikipedia page? eg DoB of minors almost-instinct 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been removed. GiantSnowman 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for brisk speedy solution :-) almost-instinct 17:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhhhh Hanson isn't minors anymore....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Their children are, though.--Auric talk 20:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Parker (sports journalist)

    Rob Parker (sports journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I believe there is currently clear undue weight given on this page to the "Controversies" section of this article. 90% of the article is taken up by that section and about 70% by this single incident involving Parker's comments on RG3. I've made a prior edit trying to condense the material, especially as most of it is just a transcript of everything that was said on Parker's show. I was hoping to get some other eyes on this, especially as he is in the news again today and it may get worse. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to trim some of the unsourced and non notable material. Since this latest bruhaha caused him to lose his job, if I am reading correctly, that would be significant, but don't know if we really need a full blow by blow transcription. Please help! --Malerooster (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help. I agree that it is significant, but not where more than half the article is a transcript of what was said. I just summarized it to cut down that section and added some additional info about his career to balance it out. It could still use some work, but if it can stay like this, it's at least reasonable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just such an attacking undue article - Youreallycan 06:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    nelson piquet

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

    some issue with place of birth. intro paragraph suggests it is sao paolo, other parts of the article suggest rio di janeiro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.151 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks - yes, there does seem to be some confusion, and neither place of birth is cited to a source. I'll at least note the inconsistency in the article, and try to find the correct details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further into this, São Paulo was only added recently, and seems most likely to be in error - though I'd like to find a trustworthy source for Rio - it is stated on multiple motor racing websites etc, but such sites often use Wikipedia as a source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Clapp

    Hi! I started an article about about Larry Clapp who was a Wyoming politician. Larry Clapp committed suicide 2 days ago in Casper, Wyoming. He was a lawyer and served in the Wyoming House of Representatives. At the time of his death he was indicted for possession of child pornography. When I started the article I deliberately left out the child pornography/suicide and mentioned only his career in politics. In Wikipedia we are supposed to work as a team which is the reason why I am coming to you concerning this sensitive matter. If the article needs to be deleted because of this so be it. However, because of he being in the Wyoming Legislature the article should be kept. Your help and comments would be appreciated. I started articles on state&territorial legislators of the United States. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he meets the notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. The circumstances of his death could be added to the article with a reference or two, without going overboard.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since he's dead there's no BLP issue here, just make sure you keep to WP:UNDUE and not make the entire article about the investigation. Remember that he was never convicted of anything, and the suicide does not imply that he was guilty either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks-I am trying to locate information about his education, etc. I am trying to find the Wyoming Legislative manual for 1977-1978 that might have the information. Again thank you-RFD (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sol Yorick

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

    Wikipedia page reports that yorick died on the 5th. I can't find any actual verification of this anywhere. Not a single news article or obituary or even a blog post. Can someone investigate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.80.109 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A source from an edit summary: [21] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another from the New York Daily News [22] Are you sure you are searching for the correct name - you've spelled it wrong in the header... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor Yorick has died? Alas! Zad68 17:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew him, Horatio.--ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of outing trans people on Wikipedia

    I have started a discussion about outing trans people in BLPs in the Village Pump policy section. NetNus (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an important discussion. The relevant principle (as I have noted there) is that we should not do things in our articles to identify someone as trans when that person has not identified themselves as trans. It's a straightforward extension of the way we deal with other aspects of sexuality: we follow that principle for L, G, and B -- and we should follow it for T as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lloyd Irvin

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

    Someone please have a look at the edits I reverted and confirm to the editor that this is a BLP violation. Or call me crazy, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call, IMO.--ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, revert was correct and the proper application of WP:BLPCRIME. Zad68 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen White (television writer)

    Stephen White (television writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am the Stephen White referred to in the article. It is accurate except for the assertion that I had anything to do with the cheerleading film "Bring It On." I would appreciate it if that reference was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.13.117 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone has removed it. You are allowed to remove unsourced material from your own article. It can only normally be replaced after good sourcing and consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed, removed by User:Onorem in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mona Freeman

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

    Hello,

    Your biography on Mona Freeman is mostly correct except she had only one child and Patrick Nerney did not abuse her. I am writing this email to you on behalf of the MONA FREEMAN TRUST. She does not live in Bologna... her husband Mr. H. J. Ellis passed away in 1992. Mona is still very much alive living in Southern California. THE TRUST's concern is that the misinformation that you have presented on WIKIPEDIA has someone in Bologna, Italy hijacking her life and is scamming her many fans.

    Thank You

    C. Hubbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.225.147 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I removed the whole section. Unsourced and placed there by a blocked vandal in May 2012.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dieter Fensel

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

    An IP is currently trying to change the article on Dieter Fensel in a, in my opinion, undue way, mostly because the person is relatively unknown to start with and the article is so short anyway. The issue is that I know the person and am thus biased -- but based on the IPs edit history it is save to assume that the IP also knows the person and is using Wikipedia for an attack. One way or the other, I would appreciate to have some unbiased and independent opinion and decision on this. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There were no arrests, only the one dubious source (spam pop-ups), and notabilty seems low to me. You may wish to try an AfD on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lizabeth Zindel

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

    The article Lizabeth Zindel was nominated for speedy deletion a while back, and rightly declined I think. While this author seems to have some independent coverage, I'm not seeing that she qualifies for inclusion under WP:AUTHOR criteria. She does seem modestly notable, so I hesitate to nominate for deletion without getting other viewpoints first. I'm transcluding this discussion to the notability noticeboard too. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    She's gotten coverage. The Publisher's Weekly piece is in depth.This one isn't bad. Her books have been reviewed. [23][24][25][26][27] especially Girl of the Moment [28][29][30][31] Her acting roles have only gotten minor mentions, but those are in the New York Times. [32][33] If nominated for deletion, I'd argue to keep. --GRuban (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right -- but our bar for notability is somewhat higher for authors, academics, entertainers, etc. Is her coverage normally to be expected for anyone in her profession, or are there any specific criteria of WP:AUTHOR that she unambiguously meets? That's why I opened this discussion, because I am not sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. That's what it says right at the top of all the subsections of which WP:AUTHOR is one: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." It's true that successful authors do tend to get some news coverage (though there are some who don't), but that doesn't mean our bar is any higher for them. Not being a particularly unusual published author doesn't mean she's not a sufficiently exceptional person to meet our standards. I'm sure you can think of numerous professions every member of which will generally meet our standards: astronaut, president, pope, etc. --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Theresa Spence & claims she isn't on a hunger strike

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

    I'm surprised this isn't here. She is a First Nation chief who is on hunger strike. The 1991 Declaration on Hunger Strikers (Declaration of Malta) makes it clear that a hunger strike does not exclude a liquid diet, and medical recommendations for the treatment of hunger strikers make this point also. I've included sources to this affect on the talk page and now in the article, but editors are still claiming - on the talk page, in the article and even in edit summaries, that this is not a hunger strike. Not surprisingly her media opponents also make the same claim. The whole article needs eyes on it who are familiar with BLP issues, but is a statement by an editor that this is not a hunger strike a BLP issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Duns

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

    • - Requesting deletion of non-notable article (about me)

    I'm an author of three books, with my fourth due to be published this year. There is an article about me on Wikipedia: Jeremy Duns. It's been there for a few years, and I see from the Talk page that when it was first published it was immediately nominated for deletion on the grounds that I'm not notable enough. I agree that I'm not - I can think of many writers much more notable than me who don't have an entry (including an author who is referenced at some length in this entry about me). The contents of the article also seem to me to be quite random. Is there any way it can simply be deleted as a non-notable entry? I strongly object to Wikipedia's editing procedures, namely:

    Anyone can edit my article, including people using aliases to mask their identities. As a result, there is usually no way to determine whether an editor has a conflict of interest or agenda.

    There is rarely any serious consideration of the overall direction of an article - instead, articles are often written willy-nilly, built up from problems with the last edit.

    These issues have combined with my article. Someone recently edited it anonymously to add several sentences about a dispute I had in 2011 with another author, who I accused of plagiarism. The edits were problematic, and I pointed out why on the Talk page. Someone has now softened the way the edits were worded - but the incident is still in the article, as the anonymous editor wanted, and there doesn't seem to me to be any good reason for it. I can think of tons of other more relevant things that I have done in my career, but I don't want to spend time arguing about this with anonymous strangers. The principle of what should be in this article hasn't really been considered, but having considered it myself, I see no reason for me to have an encyclopedia entry at all. I am not famous, and there are thousands of authors who do not have articles about them, or if they do are swiftly deleted because they're not notable. So can I nominate the article about me for deletion, please?

    Thank you,

    Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.252 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • You could, but if it went to a full article for deletion discussion, it would likely survive. As a published novelist who has made the news for reasons other than his writing, there is a strong argument that you are in fact a notable person. See Wikipedia:AUTHOR Other people being more famous or well known are not reasons that you are not notable. The section about accusing another writer of plagiarism under normal circumstances could probably easily be removed from your biography. Either as a one-off event or an undue addition. Except you kind of have form for this. Its arguable that you are more notable now for your exposing of plagiarism than your own work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. I see what you're saying, but it's also surely rather self-fulfilling point: as Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, whatever is on my Wikipedia page will contribute to me being better known for it. You say I 'kind of have form' for exposing plagiarism, and link to three articles. One is about Lenore Hart, which is already in my article and what I was discussing above. The second is about QR Markham, who is not mentioned in the article - so why is his case not in the article and Hart's is? Simply because someone added it. The third is about RJ Ellory, who is not a plagiarist, and is already mentioned in the article anyway. I have been mentioned in the media for these cases, but I don't think people who read such articles will remember my name. I'd say that QR Markham is better known as a plagiairist than a memoirist, yes, but I'd hope that being published by Penguin and Simon & Schuster would weigh more than my involvement in such issues. It could also be argued by some that I'm better known for discoveries about James Bond, for example.

    I think I'll try to edit the article to reflect what I think the balance should be, and will flag that I've done so on the Talk page to see if others agree. If not, I guess I'll have to be content with the article's balance being dictated by an anonymous stranger with a rather obvious agenda.

    Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.252 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine the Markham affair was not mentioned because no one looked too deeply into it. Or they did not actually read the source they were using beyond confirming it supported the info they wanted to add. (Its linked in one of the existing articles, which is how I found it) Undoubtedly in the event of a deletion discussion someone would have taken a much closer look. Rather than 'explosing plagiarism', perhaps I should have worded it above 'exposing fellow-author's shenanigans'. Three news organisations have chosen to use quotes by yourself in stories they have run (on a similar theme), if the Washington Times, The Express & The Telegraph think you reliable enough to quote, its going to be very difficult to convince people 'No I am not notable! Really!'. You would probably pass under criteria 2 of the WP:Author I linked above - used as an expert source by major news agencies. I would refer you to the below linked by Amadscientist however, its better to post the changes you would like on the talk page first rather than editing the article directly, as your issues are a matter of content rather than outright errors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, the contact page for the foundation is located here. When dealing with an article about yourself, WP:BIOSELF says :

    Dealing with articles about yourself


    Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help, and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page, or place {{adminhelp}} on your user talk page. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers, and impolite behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective. See #How to contact the Wikimedia Foundation for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation.
    Legal issues
    Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as OTRS). Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.

    Individuals involved in a significant legal – or personal – dispute with the subject of any article covered by this policy are strongly discouraged from editing such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page or an appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if they wish to raise concerns.

    --Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy, if you really want the article deleted, it's worth writing to that email address in the second paragraph of the text box just above. A subject's request for deletion changes the way the decision is made, per WP:BIODEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rostislav Bogoslevsky

    A "suspected serial killer", who was apparently never charged, with no in-line citations and some uncited speculation about torture and animal abuse. --causa sui (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rostislav Bogoslevsky (2nd nomination).--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Derwick Associates

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

    I was pinged to look into the reliability of the sources used in this article, and responded on the RS Noticeboard. Not only are many of the sources marginal to not at all reliable, but I am concerned there may be BLP vios. I don't have time to get involved-- perhaps someone will look at my post to the RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of an "anonymous source" is only one of its problems. The writer of the article appears not to understand the concept of "subsidiaries" and the use of "surcharge" on a contract appears to be a translation issue at best. I left in the part about it not being an official agent of GE etc. but the sources do not appear to really show that this was a problem. A mess. I also removed the part where it states without sourcing that it suing over the Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the heavy lifting there, Collect-- it was a general mess, so I identified the publishers (almost all missing) and cleaned out more text that was dubiously sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Howard Lederer comments on Chris Ferguson: A BLP question

    For those up for some reading on a talk page, click the link above. Else...

    TL;DR User:Kahnsky has brought up a possible point to add on Chris Ferguson's talk page which could be added, but which I contend with. So, with as little bias as possible...

    I contend on BLP grounds that comments made in an interview by Howard Lederer, whose reputation has lowered significantly due to his involvement in a scandal (noted at the bottom paragraph of this section). His subsequent interviews on the case have had their truths called into doubt by members of the poker community. However, such comments might bring an important insight into Chris Ferguson's involvement in the case, who has otherwise remained silent on the matter. I cannot find sources criticising this particular interview, nor comments in the poker community, so it's simply a personal opinion of mine. I'd appreciate any thoughts from people! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't add it unless his opinions stated have a degree of notability in independent secondary sources. The comments are just his opinions unsupported by any facts or people. see, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources AND Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary, secondary and tertiary sourcesYoureallycan 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Youtube as a source for a BLP where opinions are expressed? 10 foot pole time. Collect (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wanted

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

    • Concerning the section on their page, "Third Strike" *

    The third album WILL NOT be called Third Strike. (source is provided by another user)Collaborations with artists mentioned is not true except for Dappy. The song they have collaborated on WILL NOT BE ON THE WANTED'S ALBUM! It is currently on Dappy's latest album, Bad Intentions.

    Details about the third album HAVE NOT been leaked by the record label or the band members themselves, therefore there is no solid proof of any album details, except it is set for release in APRIL 2012, NOT March 2013.

    Please remove all sections of the article where the wrongly named album Third Strike is mentioned. This is very disrespectful and misleading to fans, and most importantly, the band members themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnightlocks (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Commented out as WP:Crystal ball. There is an article on it as well, but someone should likely AfD that article. Collect (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New editors being offered BLPs to edit

    See Wikipedia:GettingStarted which points new users to articles to edit, which includes BLPs. This has been raised at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Brand new users and BLPs (Biographies of Living People ). I agree it is likely to cause more BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent changes with this tag are at [34]. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Osteen

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

    Should information be added to the Joel Osteen#Criticism and controversies section about accountability regarding Joel Osteen Ministries? No newspaper article, I know of, covers this but a source was added "ministrywatch.com." According to their website "MinistryWatch.com’s request for basic information" went ignored. I am not sure that is a controversy. This group could be anybody. Also not even from the BBB site "Charity participation in BBB review is voluntary."

    http://ministrywatch.com/pdf/donoralert2011.pdf MinistryWatch.com

    http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/religious/joel-osteen-ministries-in-houston-tx-24569

    Basileias (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ministry Watch's own website should not be used as a source for a Ministry Watch claim. In a BLP, a secondary source is necessary. Collect (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fair. The BBB part, though, I think should stay, since the BBB is a generally respected institution. Perhaps, though, it should be moved out of the "Criticisms and controversy" section, since at this point it's more just a statement that they chose not to participate? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBB, IIRC, states that "non-participation" should not be construed as a negative opinion. Collect (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent additions to: Joseph A. Califano, Jr.

    I'm enquiring for a second opinion about a few recent additions to Joseph A. Califano, Jr., namely [35] (source provided doesn't work; this is concerning because for a Catholic annulment and remarriage is considered sinful), [36] (implying that he was terminated for spending unauthorized time in Hawaii at state expense), and [37] (no context at all for inclusion; just randomly thrown in there). All of these statements were sourced to what appear to be reliable sources but have a distinct hint of libel/defamation, perhaps because of WP:UNDUE. I have removed them for now pending discussion; [34] and [35] may be worth re-adding but I doubt [36] has any value unless significant context can be added on why this is important to his biography. Thoughts? Intelligentsium 03:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a tricky subject because it appears that many of the controversial things that secondary sources discuss about him come from his own book (e.g. priest abuse during high school and marriage annulment). I recommend finding a copy if you want to factcheck claims that are being made. With that said, BLPs have a higher standard for material that should be included and I'm looking into the page history now. Andrew327 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronnie Radke

    The article: Ronnie Radke. The violation: a repeated edit of this person's death. Allegedly he died yesterday (January 10, 2013, at 6:13 P.M.), but there are no sources cited, there is nothing in the news, and a bot is arguing with me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampirexpriestess (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Google and Google News searches make me believe that he is, in fact, alive. I just left a message on the IP user's talk page and will monitor the BLP moving forward. Are there any issues with the BLP as it currently stands? Andrew327 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait for an obit to be published. I had similar with John Weaver (artist). A friend of his emailed me when he passed and I added it to the article which was reverted. I phoned his local paper and they hadn't heard about it. It took over a month before the obit was published. We are not in a hurry here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahira Khan

    Irrelevant tabloid gossip has been included under the title 'Family Problems'. Mahria Khan has denied a divorce and as of December 2012 is still married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.77.79 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for raising this issue. I've removed the section in question until a more reliable source can be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Warren (computer specialist)

    Concerns re: both neutrality and editing by the subject. Lots of unsourced claims, and as happens when there's conflict of interest or oversight by an article's subject, unverifiable or trivial content relating to private life and/or personal motivations. Could use some attention from objective editors. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=532920258"