Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive206

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Narendra Modi Government

A group of editors (User:AmritasyaPutra, User:sarvajna and User:Dharmadhyaksha) have tendentiously objected to the phrase "NDA government headed by Narendra Modi" when referring to the decisions taken by this particular Government. Their objections varied from "it constitutes synthesis" or "original research" to "Modi may not have been involved" and "this article is not on Modi". You can see some of the discussion on this talk page. The Wikipedia has hundreds of occurrences of similar phrases for other Indian governments such as "UPA government led by Manmohan Singh", "NDA government led by Vajpayee" or "Vajpayee government" (which even has its own WP page). Such terminology is even more common in the UK and the USA. Qualifying the government by the Prime Minister is quite necessary in this case, in my opinion, in order to clarify to distinguish it from the other NDA government led by Vajpayee. The three dissenting editors are however adamant. User:Vanamonde93 and I would appreciate your views. Uday Reddy (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding more of the context:
The sentence in question in complete form as Uday wants is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the Bharatiya Janata Party government headed by Narendra Modi."
The sentence in question in complete form as the "tendentious dissenting adamant" editors want is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR)."
The sentence in question in complete form as has been agreed and settled upon is: "In July 2014, Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao, the Head of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of ABISY was appointed as the Chairperson of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) by the National Democratic Alliance government."
@Uday: What exactly is your reason for having your preferred version? That it exists on other pages or its very unclear because there have been so many NDA governments in 2014? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My two cents; there are several sources discussing the appointment, and 1 & 2 are currently used in the article. Source 2, as well as 3 (not currently in the article) both attribute responsibility for the appointment to the "Modi government." Therefore, I would ideally have the sentence read "was appointed by the Narendra Modi administration" and link to an article about said administration. But, that article does not exist. Therefore, Uday Reddy chose to link to Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Narendra Modi. The information is entirely factual, and we are making no insinuations about Modi himself, except that he is leading the government; therefore, I do not see any problem with including it. This fact is as notable, it would seem, as the appointment itself; if the latter is discussed, the former should be mentioned, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy you might consider phrasing your sentences in a better way, what do you mean by "tendentiously objected"? You are opposed suggestion of other editors and I don't see them using the same kind of language. Coming back to the discussion, Our articles are not opinion piece or gossip columns to attribute every decision of the government to one person. In 2014 there has been only one NDA goverment, how can this be confusing? -sarvajna (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not attributing the decision to him; we are attributing it to his government. There is a difference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If I am understanding this correctly, the National Democratic Alliance government and the Modi government are the same. This seems to be more of an editorial dispute on how to refer to the current administration than a BLP issue. Can't this discussion take place on the article's talk instead ? NQ talk 09:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The three dissenting editors have requested that it should be brought here. So, they need to explain what the BLP issue is. I suppose they believe that they have explained but you don't see it? (This is typical of the discussions with them.) Uday Reddy (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The appointment is done by "HRD ministry". Reference saying HRD Ministry makes the appointment of the head of ICHR. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source that says a decision was taken inside a particular ministry or by a particular minister, please feel free to cite it and change the attribution. In the absence of such information, it can only be attributed to the entire government. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeat: The appointment is done by "MHRD". Reference. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The reference you mention is for a different government and a different appointment. But, you are sidetracking. Where is the BLP issue? Uday Reddy (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Who appoints ICHR chairman does not change based on UPA/NDA holding office. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

All that source says is that as of 2001, the appointment was done by the ministry; and even if it says that, the last I checked, the HRD ministry was a part of the government. The question still remains; what is the BLP issue here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is part of the government. 'It' is MHRD. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the article in it's current form. The appointment is attributed to the current administration - the National Democratic Alliance - which made the appointment via its HRD department. The linked page of the National Democratic Alliance (India) clearly states that Mr Modi is in power and heads the current government. While I don't have any objection to the wording of the appointment being attributed to either the 'Modi government' or the 'NDA government' (since both seem to refer to the same administration), I don't understand the whole issue of substituting one with the other - unless I am clearly missing something. NQ talk 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The current form is suboptimal because it is holding back key information about which NDA government is being talked about. The reader has to do additional investigation to clarify that. The only reason this suboptimal version exists at present is because the three dissenting editors claim that mentioning "Narendra Modi" as the Head of the government involves a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: It was me who proposed that this be brought to BLP noticeboard. None of the references presented here, there or anywhere state that the appointment was made by the person Narendra Modi. We have no references direct or indirect which would say that the person Modi or his post as PM makes this appointment. Nor is there any reference to state that the HRD Minister has anything got to do with the appointment. The stuff that happens inside the walls of those offices is hidden from us as of now. In such situation, why should a person's name be specified?
(And btw, this ref has Modi's name only in the title and nowhere in the article possibly because his name trends and we know how online news articles have to do such things to get their businesses going.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: - The source cited above by AmritasyaPutra states that traditionally the HRD ministry makes such an appointment.

@Reddyuday: - You refer to his appointment as "stupid" here, which may indicate a bias for your preferred version.

@Reddyuday and Vanamonde93: - Dharmadhyaksha mentioned above that the term 'NDA government' was agreed upon earlier. Can I suggest leaving it the way it is, since both obviously refers to the same administration? (also taking into account that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere in the sources that Mr Modi had anything to do with the appointment personally.) NQ talk 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I had no problem with "NDA government", especially when there is no ambiguity as to which NDA government was acting in 2014. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: I certainly admit "bias" against the appointment, but the discussion you have referred to clearly shows that this in no way implies a bias against Narendra Modi, who is the subject of the present discussion. In any case, I will let this issue lie for the moment. However, I would like to register my sentiment that, if we keep caving in to vested interests that want to cover up facts and information, Wikipedia will quickly lose its intended purpose. Uday Reddy (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ:, I can live with the current version; indeed, I was the one who suggested it as compromise, after the disputed terms were removed. However, it seems to me that mentioning the name of the Prime minister (because we cannot link to a specific administration) conveys slightly more information that just the alliance in power. Given that, and given that there is no doubt about whether the additional information is accurate, it seems to me that there needs to be a good reason to exclude it. It's notability is not in question, nor is its verifiability. The fact that a lesser version is also accurate is hardly a reason to exclude a more informative one. Dharmadhyaksha keeps saying that the sources don't show Modi made the appointment; sure they don't, which is why nobody is saying that he did. We are merely saying his administration did, and "government of Narendra Modi" is more precise that "NDA government." Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha, Reddyuday, Vanamonde93, and AmritasyaPutra: - The fact remains that this isn't something that should be addressed at the BLP/N as there is no BLP issue here. Like I said in the beginning, I don't see any difference between 'NDA government' and 'Modi government' in referring to the current administration. I merely suggested to leave things as it is, (at least for now) since there seems to be some ambiguity regarding the appointing authority. This is a content dispute that should be discussed at DR/N or at the talk page itself via an Rfc. NQ talk 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger NQ. Thank you for your input! Uday Reddy (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Sorry to bother you again. Uday has reinserted Modi's name giving this reference. Can you please check the reference and let us know if the article talks about facts or more about author's i.e. Vinod Mehta's speculations? I think its the later as the article over multiple times uses phrases like "predicting", "he [Modi] seemed", "things seem", "Whether he [Modi] will continue on that road is an open question", "From what I understand of Modi’s character and temperament—and I hope this doesn’t sound too Freudian — he is a stubborn man. The more you tell him to do something, the less likely he is to do it." (What was that? Author sounds like a grumpy aunt whose daughter Modi is refusing to marry!), "However, I am not sure", "I don’t know if Modi has embarked on a similar mission", "I hope he [Modi] resists the temptation". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

BDP in BLP template

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) All right. There has been some disagreements over at Talk:Robin Williams regarding the changes to the BLP template. Robin Williams is dead and is no longer living. Tbhotch (talk · contribs) and SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) argue that [1] listing this category in this article in the category Category:Biography articles of living people is more inaccurate. while Aoidh (talk · contribs) argues that it doesn't and it violates the BLP per WP:BDP since it is still on the main page. However, I am uninvolved in this particular discussion.

Per this recent discussion, a user has suggested that Template:BLP needs to be revised to include the "bdp=" per WP:BDP. As such, I am opening a discussion regarding if we should update the include the "bdp=" parameter. Hopefully, this will resolve some issues. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm reverting it is because changing it in that manner is placing a banner at the top of the talk page specifically saying "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article", and per WP:BDP, that isn't true. Last I checked that article is still getting hundreds of thousands of page views per day, so I think that, being on of the first things they'd see on the talk page, a banner saying something that's contrary to policy is worse than having a name in some category that most people will never see. I think the name being in the category is a problem, but between the two is a non-issue. I do think the template needs to be adjusted to fix this, but making the talk page banner be so inaccurate shouldn't be an option in lieu of fixing the template. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP still applies per WP:BDP; Te only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. So yes, it still applies, but why would the cats matter? Just remove the chat and put some cat equivalent for deceased, but BLP still applies for two years at most. Apologies, not what this is about. Tutelary (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Aoidh. I think it might be necessary if we should start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started an WP:RFC at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template. All comments welcome there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the section "#People trying to categorize Robin Williams as a living people" above. NQ talk 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mistake. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering if another parameter could be added for articles that are not biographies but are subject to WP:BLP such as lists of people. Hack (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

Looks like an edit-war, so maybe it just needs 1 or 2 people reporting and dealing with - I don't know (after a quick look) and right now, don't have time to analyze all the interaction. So I'm hoping somebody else can? Thanks, 88.104.20.79 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a compromise was reached. Special:Contributions/71.165.138.103 gave some blatant and direct personal attacks, but it seems quiet now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Hill (actor)

It seems that Daniel himself has helpfully expanded his own bio today. I'm used to dealing with the pov pushers of the fringe theories and alt-med world, and my heavy handed approach might frighten him away. To me, the article as it now stands is a bit detail heavy and source light, and needs trimming and sourcing. Could a nice friendly person gently step in? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged it appropriately for now, and it stands now unsourced and in need of substantial trimming. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the page a bit. I was inclined to remove a lot more of the material because there are not any sources to support the page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ben Kalasho

The subjects use of citation is used improperly. The subjects use of citation is inapplicable to claims made. The subject article reads like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDwikieditor (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted for G11 by administrator Randykitty. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Glover

An anonymous editor recently added a section professing the article subject's alleged hatred of Islam and cited it with a blog. Normally I'd just let something like this slide but given the particularly sensitive nature of this topic I'd just like someone(s) to just take a look and be sure this is acceptable for this BLP. Please and thank you! Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted as a clear BLP violation - blogs are almost never reliable sources, especially for BLP purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

alex galindo

This biography does not mention anything of this person. Talks about her step daughter and is poorly written. Please verify.

I have removed the non-English text in Alex Galindo. Thanks for pointing that out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

nenad bach

I live in one of the ex Yugoslav republics. Accidently, I know a lot about Nenad Bacich (Bach). So: what the hell is the "European chart"?!? Does anybody have heard about that? Bach's band had never been "european charts topping", it's ridiculous. "Vrijeme i zemlja" sold less than 1000 copise of their first album. (This was intersting music, but pretty artistic). Second album (not mentioned here), published by serbian PGP records, was sold in, aproximately, 256 copies. It wasn't a aetistic music anymore. In USA I don't know exactly, but consider: is it relistic that this man sold a MILION copies?!?!? This article is a uneatable, obscure self propaganda. Remove this from Wikipedia, please.

Article is now in AFD, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nenad Bach - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The article survived AFD. The LP in this case is notable as a peace activist, not necessarily for being a musician. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Psychopathy in the workplace

Article contains weasel worded statements that strongly imply multiple corporate executives suffer from a psychological disorder (many executives from firms listed as examples are still living). While a source is provided for the speculation, there is no evidence the source author had the access to these corporate executives needed to perform a proper clinical evaluation. The article's primary author is also linking this article in multiple WP:SEEALSO sections, spreading the insinuations to multiple locations. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK now. I have watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Girl You Know Ir's True

Charles Henneberger sang the part , "Oooh Oooh OOh / I love you. girl you know it;s true". Charles Henneberger , was the original singer on this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.200.89 (talk • contribs)

The record cover [2] does list him as a guest singer. Other than the fact that he later released two albums under the name "Charles Christopher" [3], I couldn't find much information on him. So unless you can provide a reliable source that mentions him being the original singer of the song, we cannot include it. NQ talk 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernie Green

Ernie Green (former Cleveland Browns fullback) has NO middle name. Ernest E. "Ernie" Green . . . is inaccurate. I am his son, Ernie Green, Jr.

Done Probably added by mistake during routine cleanup - judging from the history. NQ talk 14:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick William Kennedy

Patrick Kennedy was Chairman of Nautical Petroleum PLC until its acquisition in 2012 by Cairn Energy PLC for £414 million. </rhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18422594ef>

Sorry, but could not locate an article on Patrick William Kennedy - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like he was suggesting that such an article be created; I've left a note on his talk page steering him toward Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza

Disagreement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza#Convicted_status as to whether D'Souza's legal status can be stated as "convicted" on the wikipedia page; D'Souza's legal status is currently "convicted and awaiting sentencing" but most news outlets have focused on the fact that he pled guilty with a notation of the sentencing date, not the precise word "convicted." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As IP states, we do not have RS which say "D'Souza was convicted of ...." He has entered a guilty plea. The court must accept the plea, get a sentencing report, and then pronounce sentence. Once the news media reports on this we can say he's convicted. If IP will be patient, the information will develop and then added to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to re-hash things overly but, the court has already accepted the plea. He is, in legal terms, convicted and awaiting sentencing. The argument that he is not yet convicted rests on a misunderstanding of law. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not here to interpret what the sources say. You're here to repeat what they say. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Partner at IBM??

First off PriceWaterhouseCoopers was not taken over by IBM. IBM acquired it's consulting arm. IBM is a publicly traded company that has shareholders not partners. This is so rife errors I don't know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.64.52 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 August 2014‎

I'd suggest beginning at the relevant article talk page(s) - neither IBM nor PriceWaterhouseCoopers are 'living persons', and consequently this is out of scope for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bishop Sankey

I deleted his Early Years section because it was not correct. The information was not correct about his mother, father, etc. His step mother, Heidi Talkington, keeps going into his Early Years section and adding information that is made up and untrue. Please keep his Early Years section deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftjab1234 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the unnecessary reference to his stepmother, but the rest of the content looks properly sourced and seems accurate. Infact you were the one who significantly expanded the section. NQ talk 00:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

David Oyedepo

Can someone here take a look at David Oyedepo? The article has been changed a bit in the latest edit and now has a Controversies section with two items sourced to the Daliy Mail. I'm not just reverting, because some of the removals done with the latest edit might be necessary. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Orlando Anderson

The recent shooting of Suge Knight brought me to search this suspect in the shooting of Tupac Shakur. I found his page launches into a full discussion of the Shakur murder. I'm wondering if A) that discussion belongs there at all and B) whether it's deletion makes Mr. Anderson even worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippa76 (talk • contribs)

Is there any chance to retrieve the "saved content" when one is editing/creating an article?

When one is writting, what it appears is the symbol of saving...? I had a problem during the creation of an article (José Antonio Najri). ★ Nacho ★ ★ 01:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Carl Dix

Poorly sourced. Largely relies of primary sources; most of the sources stem from publications from the organization that Dix himself created, which makes most of the content from the article pulled from a self published source.

Clive Martin

Source links don't work, no clear the relevance of this biography or accuracy.

Done fixed dead links, added multiple cites. NQ talk 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Boyd III

Does

Between July 2009 and December 2010, Eddie Boyd III was hired as a police officer by the department. Boyd had previously been fired from the [[St. Louis Police Department (Missouri)|Saint Louis Police Department]] after being accused of assaulting two minors, one a 12 year old girl, with his service weapon.<ref>Matt Sledge, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/ferguson-eddie-boyd_n_5682454.html Ferguson Hired Officer With History Of Allegedly Hitting Children]", ''Huffington Post'', August 19, 2014.</ref> A state commission found Boyd had committed "a criminal act".<ref>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/19/from-ferguson-cop-embroiled-in-a-brutality-suit-to-city-councilwoman.html</ref><ref>http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-ferguson-police-department-had-history-misconduct-allegations-1661674</ref>

Comport with WP:BLP in the Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) article?

I fear the HuffPo article is misused as it specifically states about Boyd's 2010 acquittal:

Vindicated by the jury, Boyd succeeded in stopping the state's effort to revoke his license in August 2010. He also sued the St. Louis police for the roughly $65,000 in legal costs he had racked up. The case was settled out of court.

which is somehow not mentioned at all in the edit questioned. And I suggest "assaulting a minor" is a contentious claim of a criminal act, and where no conviction of any sort occurred, that the use is a BLP violation.

thedailybeast article is used for the claim that a "state commission found Boyd had committed a criminal act." Last I checked, acquittal by a jury is a teeny bit more important than a state commission finding not supported by a jury. Saying a living person has committed a "criminal act" when they were acquitted by a jury is a "contentious claim" under WP:BLP

Lastly is the International Business Times: That source is about a 2013 suit unrelated entirely to the claims made. It refers to a 2013 lawsuit where a person alleged four officers used excessive force in stopping his car after a car chase. Unrelated to the claims for which it is wrongly presented as a reference. Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

jeremiah birnbaum

Hi, my name is Mya Byrne, formerly the artist known as Jeremiah Birnbaum. Someone has updated my Wikipedia page to reflect my correct name and pronouns (I recently came out as transgender and changed my name), but I'd like it very much if someone could change the actual name of the article to reflect my identity.

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.205.180 (talk • contribs)

Done.--ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing for this move was a WP:SPS(facebook), The (dubiously) reliable sources do not know of the person named "Mya Byrne", Unless sources can be provided, this article should be moved back. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see MOS:IDENTITY.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:V, how do we verify that "207.38.205.180" is "Mya Byrne"? MOS:IDENTITY does not over ride WP:V, as a matter of fact it says: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, and Neutral point of view (and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article). " (Emphasis mine). Read your own links. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources are readily available, such as the radio show found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again folks, thank you so much for making this change. I really appreciate it! :) -mya Myabyrne (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

I am Geoffrey Giul.iano This artical is biased, saying I owe taxes on a home I never owned. Has in correct information on my daughters name, my many movies, books and other life histories. I offered the URLS to confirm EVERYTHING but this was ignored. Here they are again. Pleasev treat my family, myself and my work fairly.

http://www.geoffreygiuliano.net

http://www.iconeditions.net

http://www.iconaudiobooks.com

http://www.giuliano.collection.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

These are ALL credible sources. I hope we can sort this out. Thank you in advance. Geoffrey Giuliano

Dunno -- but the BLP was a mess. I excised an entire section when it appeared the section expanded on what the source said, and I admit that Hare Krishna sources do not always impress me. Will someone take a cleaver to the verbiage please? The article is far to long and detailed on quite minor "stuff." Collect (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY DELETING IMDB.COMS FILMS BY GIULIANO

Geoffrey Giuliano is a wekk nown movie actor (SEE: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1)

A film he made 5 years ago says "soon to be released". When this is reasonably changed someone puts it back! Also when his current movies are listed from this site they are deleted. This can only be vandalism as this is well sourced and Giuliano has made several films previously unlisted. Attempts to update this long desterted page with the high profile film and literary work of this artist are being deleted out of biase, malice and other unkonwn motives. Even WORKING URLS are being removed. Would someone PLEASE intervene?

Geoffrey Giuliano Well Known Writer and Actor Someone Removing His Books and Films

Some is removing the well known international books and films of this artist when they are sourced properly by imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1) and the website: http://www.iconeditions.net

This is vandalism. Please intervene.

The books can be mentioned, but they should be in a list form, in a Bibliography section (something like James Thurber#Bibliography). As a clunky paragraph, it just doesn't fit well with the rest of the Literary section. Try doing it that way. Seems more like a style problem than a BLP one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note: These three threads are about the same article - they were created by an IP and a new user. They both claim to be Guiliano. I have moved all three threads together can created sub headers to consolidate the conversation. If anyone feels this is an error and wants to spread them back out that is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: IMDB has been deemed not a reliable source at WP:RS/N multiple times now. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Bibliography and films of Actor Author Geoffrey Giuliano

Some party is removing the literary works and films of this artist. Source for books. The publisher: http://www.iconeditions.net

Sounce for films: INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE .COM

URL: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0321325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

PLEASE SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY STOP THIS INTENTIONAL VANDALISM. WE ARE MONITORING THIS PAGE FOR UNFAIR ACTIVITY. SHOPULD NOT A WIKIPEDIA PAGE BE ALLOWED TO BE UPDATED?

Comment I can't speak for everyone else who has reverted your work, but I can at least point out why I reverted it by drawing your attention to your talk page for my reasons.

Please though can I check who you mean by "We"? Is there more than one of you editing on this account? Stephen! ^Coming... 11:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that from this edit and this earlier edit here that User:The Whole Truth Now is either the author Geoffrey Giuliano, or uses the same computer as him. In either case, we have a clear conflict of interest. I have asked the user to explain his connection with the author on his talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest

2014 Ferguson unrest has a photograph of with a caption of "Ray Albers points with his carbine at protesters." I submit to you that this caption is a BLP violation. We don't have a RS making this claim, and the source of the photo is still from a youtube video, of which NEVER shows the person who is alleged to be Albers pointing a weapon at anyone. Yellow editing at its finest.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A number of good sources are available to verify that claim. Why not use one, instead of posting here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For the obvious reason is we don't have any verification that the photo is what it claims to be.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Except for our eyes, you mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If your eyes see protestors being pointed at, get your eyes checked.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no, I'm good, I've seen the video and read the news stories -- I'm in no doubt about what happened here, and neither should our readers be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

“St. Ann Police Lt. Ray Albers raises his rifle at demonstrators on West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson shortly before midnight on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014.” Photo by Huy Mach, ****@post-dispatch.com [4] - Are you saying that the journalist that took that photo made this up? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, hes saying the photograph in question did not contain enough information to verify the caption. Which is 100% true. Stop with the snark please. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be OR. Using two seemingly photographs and using the caption of one photograph to describe the other. But then again, you haven't a fucking clue as to what OR is in the first place.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

About your you haven't a fucking clue above, please see WP:NPA. Check the sources. Even the police says that he pointed a gun to protesters. Here is the statement: [5], which clearly say "peaceful protestor [sic]" - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Its very simple, so let me splain it to you: You have no idea who is on the receiving end of the barrel. You can speculate, but we don't speculate on, Wikipedia, especially for living subjects. Here's one for you WP:CIR. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice essay. Just that I don't enjoy engaging with verbally abusive editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's verified that he was performing this action [6] and there's very little reason to doubt the validity of the YT video that demonstrates this actual event upclose (and even moreso in a CC manner). I can't see this being a BLP issue since that's exactly the reason he was dismissed as verified by news reports. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Although it is indeed not absolutely obvious from the photo alone, it is more obvious from the video. It was at least pointed at the photographer in any case. A simple wording change can deal with the issue, it has been written in several RS that he at some point pointed his gun at protesters, and was suspended for it. So saying "Ray Albers, who was suspended for pointing his carbine at protesters" does not have the issues of interpreting the photograph, and readers can make their own mind up of if the photo is an example of that action or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Very constructive and sensible suggestion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources [7], [8], [9] and many more. Thank god for citizen journalism. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is in violation of WP:QUOTE What he said is heresay and must be attributed to someone else. Given the inflamatory nature of the supposed statement, it must be fixed. Arzel (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Captions are also subject to BLP

Captions should describe the photo, and must conform to all BLP policies in addition to verification. The insistence of adding "peaceful protestors" vs simply "protestors" is not reported by a preponderance of the sources, so,we should defer to NPOV phrasing of the caption.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Just follow the sources. You may have missed it, but the police report (see above) says "peaceful protestor". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"peaceful protestor [sic]" [10], Statement from St Ann police. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Primary source vs secondary sources. Have a care with claims about living people. The power of an image, which stands out in an article, is quite strong. Multiple secondary sources are required.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a police report saying why they dismissed one of their own from the force is a secondary source on the event. If they said they dismissed him for pointing a gun at a peaceful protester, that's fully in BLP allowance. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a secondary source. Just as court documents are not permissible for use on Wikipedia as sources, neither are police reports or press releases. We rely on secondary sources to use this sort of primary source.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiple secondary sources are required? Here you go: “Albers pointed the gun at a peaceful protester after a "verbal exchange," according to St. Louis County Police Officer Brian Schellman” [11], “The officer, who was not identified, has been removed from the field after he pointed his semiautomatic weapon at a peaceful protester, according to Brian Schellman” [12]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So feel free to add that, but it needs to be attributed. However it sure as hell doesn't belong in the caption.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't think it belongs in the caption. The whole point of the issue and the crux of why he was suspended was the clear misuse of his weapon to threaten unarmed, peaceful protestors - as the police themselves have already admitted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Kirk Gibson

Notable Achievements lists him as being named National League manager of the year in 2011. Detroit Tigers are in the American League.

According to Major League Baseball Manager of the Year Award, he won it for his work with the Arizona Diamondbacks. His article and the team's back this up. Just a coach for the Tigers, 2003-05. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please ignore my entry- he was NL Manager of the year in 2011 with the Diamondbacks. He last played with the Detroit Tigers (American League)-SORRY...

No problem. I learned something. I'll probably forget it soon, but thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI again

This RfC is now closed, but there is still some apparent difficultly in implementing that close (if needed) in this discussion here. Further commentary might be helpful at this time to define a best way forward. Guy1890 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Charles Lavine (politician)

This article has a lot of problems I'd like to try to fix. There's consistent innuendo, personal attacks, and NPOV material. It doesn't conform to the WIKI:BLP and more generally it has a lot of format problems. It comes across as a rival campaign attacking Lavine, because (for example) it prominently emphasizes three examples of people he defended as a lawyer who are likely to be controversial, and places them at the front of the article, without any explanation of relevance, or context. Other problematic lines:

"In the wake of the Israeli Flotilla incident Lavine sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging that America's support of Israel should remain resolute; however, during the 2008 presidential election, Lavine participated in "Hugs for Obama" as a key supporter of Obama's "Organizing for America" campaign."

This seems to imply some sort of duplicity, for no reason I can see.

"Not only did he receive praise from local community leaders for his efforts in the assembly but also Lavine for Good Government received a generous campaign contribution. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the beneficiary of the red-light traffic camera project in Nassau County,[38] donated $1,000 to Lavine's campaign in 2009."

There's no evidence those two things are related, and the references just link to generic campaign filings that don't mention the specific donation.

To disclose any potential bias, I am a resident of Lavine's district and I voted for him.

NYRambler (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@NYRambler: Knock yourself out. Any improvement in a BLP is an improvement to the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

jeanne tripplehorn

The name above her picture is titled 'Jeanne Nippleporn' Jeanne Tripplehorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.252.8 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know.

Fixed by another editor just before you posted here. NQ talk 13:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Zion Lopez

I am reporting this page to the BLP board, as it is a complete fabrication with no valid citations. I have removed it from the List of pro skaters page.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zion Lopez. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD closed, and article deleted as a blatant hoax.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

Does this list comport with WP:BLP noting discussions about the level of sourcing needed for contentious claims. Many of the "scandals" listed represent a single person who is indicted and not convicted, or even where only "allegations" existed without any conviction or indictment at all. Most of the "scandals" represent single individuals, in one case it is a "scandal" that a person denied being at a "gay bar" and another "scandal" was a shoplifting conviction. One "scandal" is about a Twitter post. In short - IMO this is a malorganized affront on the WP:BLP policy, and anything which is not clearly a "scandal" where a reliable source uses that word, should be deled. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexsandra Wright

This page on the subject is defamatory and derrogatory to her and her innocent child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.175.30 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism has been reverted. Thanks for the notice.

Bramble claw x 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cherie Blair

I've posted a note to the talk page about a photo in the article. Since it's a photo of me, I think it's probably best if I don't remove it myself, so I'm just calling attention to it for others to discuss/decide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Image removed per t/p discussion.--ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Schleicher

We would like to have the opportunity to update the article entry for Andreas Schleicher to reflect this current status and CV: http://www.oecd.org/edu/andreas-schleicher.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.128.8 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you have a conflict of interest based on your question. If so please use the article's talk page to suggest edits, but note that a CV produced by the subject or his connections is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. You will need to provide independent sources. --ukexpat (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri

Would uninvolved editors please take a look at the recent history of Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri. The point at issue is that people keep inserting and removing a referenced claim that the current college principal, a Dr P K Bajpai, is facing criminal charges. The most recent insertion to this effect (since removed) reads:

In 2011-12 the management appointed a person named Dr. Pramod Kumar Bajpai (P. K. Bajpai) as Principal. He is implicated in a serious criminal case against women, (REG. CRI. CASE/1300525/2006).^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] in which trial is still under way in Udaipur.^[6]

^ Details of the Case against Pramod Kumar in the court of ACJM

^ FIR number 153/2006 Pratap Nagar Thana, Udaipur. (Ganeshpura, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan ( East ) – 313001 PH: 0294-2490499

^ Charge sheet number 163/2006

^ Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 1, reproduced here

^ Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 2, reproduced here

^ Charges under sections 354 and 509 of IPC: Court of ACJM-1 - Neelam Sharma (court no. 13) Udaipur, Rajasthan

Q.: Does this claim have a legitimate place in the article, or not?: Noyster (talk), 15:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals like these - "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." There isn't any secondary coverage for the claims either. Requested temporary protection and the page has been

Semi-protected for two weeks by Ged UK due to repeated addition of material that violates BLP policy. NQ talk 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Avishai Margalit

Your article states Avishai Margalit died in 1962 and also shows his works in 2010 and 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.89.154 (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to your claim on the page Avishai Margalit - NQ talk 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey

The article on this prominent financier does not contain information on a sexual harrassment suit brought by a former employee. It has been removed on the grounds that it has only been reported in tabloids: The New York Post[13] and New York Daily News[14]. I realize that WP:BLPSOURCES argues against inclusion of this material: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." However, I notice that it has been covered in Law360 [15]. Would that push it over the threshold into includability? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sharad Pawar

Could someone take a look at Sharad Pawar - a page about an Indian politician. I came across the article a few months back, trimmed it and added tags, but was promptly reverted. It showed up again on my watchlist today and it seems there are no improvements. NQ talk 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ambode

Akinwunmi Ambode is a candidate here in Lagos Nigeria vying for political office in the 2015 elections. The article Ambode contains some irregularities as shown below:

I have reverted the article (due to vandalism) as it used to belong to the indian delicacy Ambode which page has been currently been reverted to due to vandalism
Page Akinwunmi Ambode (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambode&oldid=622183299) had previously been deleted after discovering the article did not meet the Wikipedia's guidelines (see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akinwunmi_Ambode)
Article publishes false and political claims:

"All Progressives Congress candidate for Governor of Lagos State, Nigeria"
"Incumbent - Babatunde Fashola" ← Indicating he is the incoming Governor
"His belief in mentoring and passion for passing on leadership skills..."

Wikipedia link has been distributed via SMS and viral emails - here in Lagos - to legitimise claims using Wikipedia's good name

This sockpuppets associated with this article have been known to be repetitive and continuos as seen on the deletion thread. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadegoke (talk • contribs) 10:12, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Suman Sahai

This is a continuation of an archived discussion - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205#Suman Sahai The post was edited to remove a more recent article, (available at http://www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/GID/224/kurz-notiert-politik-und-wirtschaft#17) vis-a-vis the Labjournal editorial, which clearly says that the University never initiated any plagiarism proceedings against the BPL subject and she returned her venia legendi voluntarily. If the University never initiated a proceeding then it seems more likely that there wasn't any plagiarism, especially considering the fact that the main source the Labjournal editorial is relying on is a dead page. (available at http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=6772&cHash=493fc2a4bdbf14a5532b76df14417abd) Further, it is very easy to prove a plagiarism charge now thanks to turnitin. If this Labjournal is so certain they can easily publish more information such as where it was plagiarized from, how much etc. but they haven't done so. There is also no evidence to show that the 'source' they refer to actually exists . Even then the article has been edited to say that the subject was "shown to have committed plagiarism in her habilitation thesis". I think it would be accurate to say that she has been accused but there has never been any proof. The University also has not made any accusations against her.

Compare the last edits and it becomes obvious that the current version is definitely not NPV and actually the page is being vandalized to push this plagiarism accusation as a fact without any proper sources. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suman_Sahai&diff=621911889&oldid=621909786 I am editing the page to present a NPV and including both articles so that the reader can decide as there is no proper proof shown yet. I hope it is not vandalized again to present a biased opinion.

Edit - The dead page cited by Labjournal is dead now because it was retracted by the University to rectify the error. That's also the reason they gave a statement to her lawyer saying that there was no proceeding against her. Sleepingcow (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read the labjournal article given as a source? It clearly states Sahai copied the chapter ‘Glutamate in the brain of mammals’ in her habilitation from Fonnum, Frode. (1984), GLUTAMATE - A NEUROTRANSMITTER IN MAMMALIAN BRAIN Journal of Neurochemistry, 42, 1, pp. 1-11. They also give a link to an online copy of Fonnum's article so it clearly exists! Turnitin was useless in this case as Sahai's habilitation did/does not exist in any digitized or online format & had to be ordered as a paper copy from Heidelberg. So yes, there is indeed proof that Sahai committed plagiarism. The absence of an investigation was undoubtedly for political reasons. rgds 46.64.184.159 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute to Bieber DUI discussion

All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion regarding the inclusion of certain content and references for the conclusion of the court case of Justin Bieber#Legal issues for DUI and other charges. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyes please

Back on August 12th, I reverted Zambelo's edit where he placed several names on this template . I got a notification that he'd reverted me, so I went back to look, he replaced exactly the same names back in, which I reverted as they violated BLP (he's claiming these individuals are opposed to NRM's, but there is no article, nor references to back that up with.) I checked further and see that he's also done this with Free Range Frog as well. Here he reverts Free Range Frog and notes that the individuals are "known" and that they have no articles Here I reverted him and advised him that BLP forbids this kind of thing and here he is reverting again to the same list of names . I've already dropped him a note on his talk page explaining why this cant be done. and he's responded to it, civily. I have the feeling he may wait a while then try to revert again, so I'm requesting extra eyes on this template. Thanks KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: The argument by Zambelo that the entries are "OK" because they are sourced in the articles linked to by the template is specious - it's the equivalent of creating an unreferenced list of names and claiming they are sourced in some article they are linked to. I have a problem with the names because what happens when one of these people decide they don't want to be associated with the organization or movement Zambelo attached them to? They're going to edit the article they appear in and then they're going to be lost with the template, which has a lot of transclusions and so to them it looks like their name is everywhere and they can't remove it. Are they going to contact Zambelo? No, they're going to write to OTRS screaming bloody murder. Things like these are why BLP requires sourcing everywhere living persons are even remotely mentioned, and templates should not be an exception. The names should not be added back in. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm, @FreeRangeFrog:? I just noticed this comment and I don't think it's supported by policy. You're right that BLP applies in general to everything, and there should be sourcing somewhere, but the sourcing requirement for BLP standards happens in the linked articles, not the the navigational template. If you look at where BLP does and does not apply, and especially WP:BLPCAT, you'll see that templates don't require direct citations. They do absolutely need to be backed up with the article itself, and a name should only be added to a template if it is directly mirroring the article and the characteristic is demonstrated to be somehow defining or significantly noted by sources. But this doesn't seem to be a case where it's even a label of ill-repute. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the edit, and I can see that the additions went wildly overboard. There can be no "redlink" or non-article names in a template. But if there's someone who is completely defined by their anti-cult work, and they have an article that supports that with great blp-compliant sources, then it should be appropriate to have their name in the template. It's okay to have living people listed in templates as long as it's BLP-compliantly covered and sourced in the article itself. See: Template:Feminist theory and Template:American social conservatism __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: I'm not sure if you agree with the inclusion of the names or not? Both of those templates you mention have all blue links. What I'm saying is that this is not a run-of-the-mill topical area and we have a bunch of names of people that serve no navigational purposes whatsoever, and are supposed to be sourced by the other articles in the template, which to me is an unsourced list for all practical purposes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that that names with little chance of having articles developed should 100% be left off a navigation template. So I think we basically agree that the edit to flood the template was unhelpful. Your message made it sound like you didn't consider being sourced in an article as enough to be included in a template, but I think I understand now that you were saying they weren't clearly sourced in any article. That's fine. On a different note, I am surprised that there aren't more articles included of unaffiliated individual people strongly associated with opposition to New Religious Movements. The template seems overwhelmingly organized around group membership which seems, well, funny, in a horrible kind of way?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's missing people like Bryan R. Wilson, and maybe some other individuals with articles strongly defined by their association with the subject of the navigation template. Maybe I'll check it out later, when I have a moment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the purpose of the template solely for navigational purposes only? My idea was to have a complete listing of the individuals and organizations comprising the anti-cult movement - the inclusion of individual names shows where the various organizations in the ACM overlap - for instance an individual could chair on multiple anti-cult group boards. Removing the names doesn't allow for the connections between organizations to be visible. For me, the template is both a navigational tool, but also a hierarchical map showing the relationships between individuals and organizations, which is important for the overall understanding of what the Anti Cult Movement is. The individuals in questions (those without an article) would be referenced as pertaining to the anti-cult group in question, and so there is really no BLP issue - the individuals should be added to the template, but unlinked. Zambelo; talk 15:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see this resolved, either way - the way I see it, the individuals are listed under the anti-cult groups they belong to, and they are mentioned in these articles, since they are not notable outside of being part of these anti-cult groups. To remove these individuals is to not give a clear picture of what comprises the anti-cult group, an inter-connected mesh of secular, religious, and national opposition to new religious movements. I'm not attaching the people to the groups, these people founded and ran the mentioned groups, and this is mentioned in the articles on the groups. The alternative would be to create tiny articles for each individual, or redirect these articles to the group page where the references can be found. I'm looking for a solution, and I don't think removing the names is the most productive one. Zambelo; talk 09:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: I totally agree with you on that, that's why I reverted Zambelo and posted here about it. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way - this doesn't look very promising either. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How so? Zambelo; talk 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Joni Enrst

A NYT article of today includes this statement "The channel released audio of three other Republicans in tough Senate races — Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Joni Ernst, a state senator in Iowa — all of whom also praised Charles G. and David H. Koch and the millions of dollars they have provided to help Republican candidates." [16].

This comment was the result of tapes that have surfaced in which Ernts said the following in a panel in an American for Prosperity fundraising event : “I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory.”

The edit that includes that material and the quote (diff [17]) was deleted on the basis of the edit being a WP:COATRACK.

I would appreciate uninvolved editors to weigh-in on the merits of the removal/inclusion of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: this misstates the discussion at the article talk page, but Cwobeel called me WP:DUCK [18] and has not apologized nor filed the SPI report he should file if he actually believed me to be a sock master. so I decline to respond to his inaccurate statement of the issues involved. Kindly note that either we have a source that Ernst praised AFP, or that she praisedthe Kochs, but the quote given in the NYT shows neither, nor do I think that the quote as given shows much of anything at all. The transcript of the speech has not been given by the editor who wishes to make the claim that she praised AFP and the Kochs at the one speech. Collect (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry. I meant DUCK, in the context of this reporting on the NYT and HuffPo being obvious. Now that I see what that essay is, my apologies. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, the NYTimes did not refer to praise of the AFP, which means the claim is inaptly stated. And the quote given does not mention the Kochs. Which is also a problem. The NYTimes does name several people as "praising the Kochs" but without any transcript or quote backing that up, it appears to be an opinion about the tenor of the comments rather than an actual factual claim that the people thanked the Kochs by name in any way. And, of course, what precisely does "praising" mean here? The quote actually cited appears to thank a group for support, but I am unsure that this is the same as "praise" which has a specific definition not met by the wording of the quote (which appears to be the basis for the NYT opinion). Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How WP:NEWBLPBAN is mis-used to stifle debate on BLPs

The ArbCom ruling was a great decision to protect BLPs from being abused and to protect the integrity of the project. But there are some editors that use the restriction as an indiscriminate fire-hose and a way to stifle debate.

As an example, see this comment in an RFC [19].

Note that the discussion here is not about some controversial aspect, coat racking, undue criticism, or lack of sources. This is a discussion about the inclusion of things that a living person said in the context of a speech, quoted word by word without interpretation or criticism.

This is just one example of many I encounter when editing articles about politicians, and I find it ridiculous that WP:NEWBLPBAN is applied in this manner to stifle debate and to disallow inclusion of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Centerplate#Animal abuse

I'm concerned the Animal abuse section of the Centerplate article is turning into a coatrack for an attack piece on Desmond Hague. There are some reliable sources, and I'm not necessarily arguing for removing the section entirely, however I'd appreciate the input of experienced editors. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I share the concern and have edited down the section. There appears to be a SPA which wants to devote as much space as possible to Hague's misdeeds. Edward321 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the incident's only connection with the company is that it involved their CEO - in his own time - I'm unconvinced that it needs inclusion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The SPA continues to restore and expand the Animal abuse section. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the clear violations of WP:BLP policy involved in using the article as a coatrack for negative material on an individual - off-topic, since it had nothing to do with the company's business - I have removed the section entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Šćepović

Some clever munchkin has taken it up on themselves to fill this page with immaturity - cute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.247.107 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael P. Matote

This isn't the place for a draft article.--ukexpat (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal life Michael P. Matote = 20 5'9 ft 60 Lbs Born = November 13 1993 Birth place = Tuguegarao city Poblacion sur rizal Nueva ecija Job = Sales and Compute Technicians

Primary = Learning centre by the Hill side (2004 - 2007) Secondary = St. louis anne Montessor High School and Colleges (2007 - 2011) Tertiary = Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology (2011 - 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjane25 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick

Jeff Berwick is a run-of-the-mill business man that has been involved in a couple of scams (e.g. Galt's Gulch Chile) and is using his wiki page as a promotional tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.18.145.149 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones, "moon landing hoax" input needed

Some days ago an IP removed long standing content about Jones' "moon landing hoax" peddling, referencing a Youtube video by some guy. This is the content removed:

He has accused the U.S. government of (...) the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.

I reverted this edit noting the video was not a proper source for the claim the IP was making, to have it reverted by Collect claiming the videos in place used as sources where Jones can be heard and even seen saying "they put on some fake stuff for you—see, there was a lie" and "You were shown the tinker-toy stuff because you're not supposed to see what they really got", were not a WP:RS. So I added a secondary reliable source (an article in The Daily Beast by a political journalist) and reinstated the content warning Collect (having seen him use the same tactics before) to follow WP:BRD and not to revert again. Of course he immediately reverted again this time claiming WP:BLP as a "reason" and dismissing completely the secondary sourced I had just added.

After reverting that second time, thus completely ignoring WP:BRD, Collect opened a new section in the talk page. From there on his reasons for refusing to self-revert have been: you need a "reliable secondary source" (which was already in place before he removed the content), the Daily Beast article is an "opinion source" (it is not, it's an article by a political journalist in a WP:RS), "primary video sources are,however, not permitted" (not true, they are permitted as long as no interpretation is made, which in this case is not being made since it's a source showing himself saying that), "Find a transcript for what you wish to claim" (moving goalpost now, I point out that the article indeed has the full excerpt transcripted), find a "a transcript of the show not an excerpt in an article" (now he demands a transcript for the entire show).

I told Collect numerous times that if he had an issue with the accurateness with which the content was being presented he should have edited it instead of edit-war to remove long standing content twice, completely ignoring WP:BRD. I would appreciate some input on this issue. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: He removed per BLP, BLP is exempt from 3rr. More than that, he removed a youtube video that you were using to support a fringe theory from a crackpot. Anytime an extrodinary claim is made about a living individual, reliable sources have to be used, youtube doesn't meet that criteria. Yes, I know it's a video of him, and yes, he's spewing crackpot ideas about how the moon landing was faked, however videos can be faked, and since youtube doesn't check for this on any of it's videos, it can't really be confirmed that he believes this. Now, if a reliable source (say Time Magainze, reports that Alex Jones has this theory that the moon landing was fake, that can be used. Collect is correct in this case. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not so minor quibble: Youtube is a medium which can absolutely contain BLP-compliant sources. If the owner of a Youtube channel is considered a reliable source (example) then videos published by that owner should be considered reliable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If the material is only sourced to a self-published/non reliably-sourced sources, then it is absolutely correct to remove that material, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Self-published stuff like that is not a useable citation either for claims about other third parties or extraordinary beliefs about third parties. You can use it for beliefs like "The subject says they enjoy grilled cheese sandwiches" but not for claims like "The subject says lizards are from outer space and control our minds." It's different if the material comes from a reliable independent source, of course. Even then I would be cautious about adding the video as a direct citation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comments do not apply, since this concerns an issue WP:ABOUTSELF permits: a source for the statement that Jones said X (so long as X is not interpreted).

Regarding an earlier comment above: BLP does not have a blanket exemption from 3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The possibility that the video of Jones is faked is simply a conspiracy theory, par for the course for Jones and his fans, but not for Wikipedia. Is the video from the official Alex Jones YouTube channel? If so, at this rate anything and everything on-line is doubtful, since heck, maybe someone is putting fake news in the NYT archives or something.

The real issue is whether this (or other Jones' statements) ought to be in the article. If third-party sources have not shown interest in Jones' views on X,Y,Z, then it seems out-of-line for WP editors to include them. Stick to summarizing what third-party sources have felt worth saying about Jones, backed up by official Jones video if you like. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One added problem is that a "really juicy quote" about Jones was sourced to a book whose search through google does not show that quote. Thus I am especially vigilant of misuse or "creative use" of sources on that BLP. And we should avoid pure opinion sources for claims of fact, IMO and according to WP:BLP. In short, this BLP has been shown to attract "fake quotes" or ones taken from contenxt in the past. Jones may be a loon, but we still have to follow the rules. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF absolutely applies. We can't quote every single thing people say they believe if it's only cited to an SPS or questionable source. There are defined limits. It cannot involve an exceptional claim, it can't involve a claim about a third party, it can't involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Saying the subject believes "Extraordinary claims about moon landing knowledge" has at least three strikes against it. Collect was initially correct that this needed a secondary independent source before it could be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon & Elaqueate the secondary source has been provided and the article even contains a transcript of Jones saying those things. Neither of you mentioned this article, do you believe The Daily Beast is not a WP:RS? KoshVorlon are you saying we can't use the YT video of himself saying those things as a primary source because it might be fake? Do you have any reasons to believe this? Gaba ^(talk) 17:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate: Yes, there are limits, but they don't apply here. There is nothing exceptional about Jones supporting yet another conspiracy theory. An exceptional claim here would be "Alex Jones claims fluoridation is good for you", I would assume something like that is an Onion headline. Jones is talking about himself—his beliefs on certain 1969 news—and the video is used for the article on Jones. The claim cannot be used as a source for anything else. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Three strikes on WP:ABOUTSELF. Saying the subject believes an extraordinary claim about third parties still involves extraordinary claims about third parties. Doesn't mean it's not true that he believes it, we just need better independent sourcing that the belief is important, verified to not be a joke by the subject, not a mental lapse, etc. Not about the truth, just what we use as to say we verified our claim about what he stated.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

I absolutely agree that truth of "Jones said X" is not the issue here, just what are our rules for including such a factoid. I favor waiting for third-party sources to give significance. I do not view "Jones said X" as a claim about X, but about Jones, and I think this is an illogical misreading of WP:ABOUTSELF on your part. The concern over misinterpretation is irrelevant to this particular detail: it's not part of WP:ABOUTSELF, but a general issue, applied with extra concern for BLP. Choor monster (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some "Jones said X" that are not usable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If the X is "Jones says Mr. McGillicuddy is a murderer." then you can't tun it on its head and just say it's a statement about Jones and what Jones happened to say. It still involves an extraordinary claim about a third party. If Jones is considered an expert or otherwise reliable source, then WP:ABOUTSELF might not apply, but if he's not it's not supposed to be only self-sourced. He's not making a claim only about himself, if he says "NASA lies". "Jones said X" still involves X (even if it's also about Jones's belief) which requires us to be more cautious about sourcing it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. This is confusing use and mention. Let me illustrate with a less all-or-nothing example. Suppose Smith is a novelist, and he's really only noted for being a novelist. If the only source of information on his fringe beliefs is his webpage, I'd say leave them out, it's not WP's job to pass on maximum trivia. But if he was interviewed 10 years ago, and the interviews were RS published, and he stated he was a truther, sure, include it then, no questions, despite the derogatory claims about Bush. But what if Smith is a major has-been and hasn't had any interviews since? And his webpage reveals he's a birther? I'd say include it, despite the derogatory claims about Obama. And since Smith is an established fringe advocate, it can't be viewed as an exceptional claim about Smith. And WP isn't making exceptional claims about Obama in this scenario. The only issue is whether WP is making an exceptional claim about Smith. Choor monster (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If the only place for the info is his webpage I don't think it matters if he's not famous anymore or was never famous. People sometimes joke on their web-sites or don't take them seriously, especially if they're not that famous. If someone has some small fame as a novelist, I don't think a single SPS for possibly contentious material is appropriate, too much risk of OR or SYNTH from an over-enthusiastic editor not backed by a reliable source to cover their butts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And it completely depends on the material too, if the website said "In September, he spoke at a Birther convention." that's fine. But Wikipedia should never have something like "Jones said that Obama was born in Antarctica" sourced only to an WP:SPS. We can't use SPS all by themselves to report people's beliefs about other living people, even when attributed. Please keep in mind I'm only talking about material where we can only source to a SPS; there are plenty of things that can be attributed to people if they're backed up through RS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing use and mention. "Jones said X" is a statement about Jones, not about X. Given Jones' track record, this was not a contentious claim. OR/SYNTH is simply not allowed, and WP:ABOUTSELF giving limited permission is not negated just because the risk exists. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Jones said X" is about Jones and X. If the only source was a SPS or questionable source, and the X was a contentious claim about a Wikipedia editor called "Choor monster", then it wouldn't be allowed in a Wikipedia article, even if it was written in the form "Jones said X". If the NYT mentioned the accusation, it could be possibly used, cited to the NYT. But not when it's a combination of "third party accusation" and "self-published questionable source".__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not, it is not about X. If you only partially quote "Jones said X" you get a statement about X. By your logic it would in fact mean the NYT has become fringe because it's saying X, and X can be mentioned on WP using non-fringe sources only. But in fact the NYT does not become fringe because it would say "Jones said X". Again, for the umpteenth time, you are making the use/mention

Collect: Not finding a quote on Google, especially for recent books, is not proof of fakery, although the burden is on the quoter to give the edition/page number. (Also, 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.) Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The page number was given. The quote does not appear to be on that page, nor in the entire book. I find using the Google search function within a book to be fairly reliable. The same editor is involved in citing the "quote". Collect (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Google books is great, but not perfect. Go to the library. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussion of The Daily Beast as a reliable source - here and here. NQ talk 18:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaba_p, I said it's a different story when there's a independent reliable source for the material. For the moon landings, try using this Esquire piece. I think it should be easy to find multiple secondary sources outlining that Jones is considered a conspiracy theorist and specifically the moon landing accusations. I just think we can't and shouldn't source it directly to his raw videos. Otherwise articles about contentious figures could turn into ersatz podcast catalogues, with direct links to every nonsense idea anyone's ever had.

Independent links from reliable sources are needed for surprising and clearly extraordinary claims about people's beliefs, regardless of whether we can directly verify that someone confessed a nutty idea on their blog. It's better to summarize as the reliable sources do, than list every pronouncement he's made as if every idea deserves a place in the encyclopaedia. It's supposed to summarize what RS think about him, it's not supposed to be a laundry list of every weird thing he's said. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate I agree with you, the raw videos where there before I added the DB article and I also think adding a secondary source is the best thing to do. So given that there is a reliable secondary source in place which not only comments on that but provides a transcript of what he precisely said (which Collect dismissed claiming it's not a transcript of the entire show), do you agree that the original statement should go up? I can of course add the source you provided too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact he believes the moon landings were faked is verified from good secondary sources and should be included. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don't think the transcripts are great Wikipedia material, in the same way that court transcripts are not as reliable for Wikipedia purposes as a good secondary source supplying a reliable legal interpretation. It's too easy when using purely primary material to get into OR or SYNTH problems. There's a quote where Obama mistakenly says "here in Asia" when he was in Hawaii; it would be too easy to source "Obama said he believed Hawaii was in Asia" if we allowed a transcript citation rather than a proper RS for the actual context of the quote. I think the Esquire piece shows a reliable source believes Jones is sincere when saying he believes the landings were faked, I'm probably neutral on the the Daily Beast, but it's not a bad source, just people will predictably argue if it's the main or only citation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Elaqueate and Choor monster, I'll await to see what KoshVorlon makes of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources are allowed, but must be used with extra caution for just the reasons Elaqueate summarized. They are normally worthless for evaluating notability, significance, importance. (And further note that WP:BLPPRIMARY forbids certain privacy-violating uses, not relevant here.) Choor monster (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A point: When Jones is publishing his views of what happened at NASA half a century ago, he is not presenting the view of a primary source. He's analyzing events he had no direct part in. That makes him a self-published secondary source. He's not presenting it as material about his personal beliefs or direct experience, but as objective fact. If the material is clearly "I spent all of the Nineties investigating Moon Landing theories", then sure, that's completely about himself. If the material is framed more as "he says NASA fabricated this moon rock out of papier-mâché" then we are going beyond a summary of belief and repeating his analysis about third parties and events he was not a part of. The more it's about events or people beyond the subject's direct experience, the more we need independent reliable sources, rather than parroting material from SPS/questionable sources that we generally consider unreliable.

I think we are encouraged to use primary sources more for primary claims, (when a source is clearly talking about their direct experience in a way most people wouldn't find controversial) but we are discouraged from using any primary source when it is making secondary claims (somebody considered non-expert who wasn't in WWII talking about what happened in WWII on their blog). __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As WP:PRIMARY says, "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Jones on Jones is primary, your analysis is irrelevant. Did Jones say X or did he not? He's either secondary or tertiary on NASA, so there is no chance his self publications can be used on NASA-related pages. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

The Skeptical Inquirer, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal., 2009 - Page 30 The show focuses on various conspiracy theories, such as those promulgated by Alex Jones about the New World Order, those on the Moon landing hoax, and HIV/AIDS denialists' theories that HIV/AIDS is a government plot.

The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy Page, ISBN 978-1621572022 Alex Jones, a radio host who ferreted out government conspiracies behind the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the moon landing

- Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Among Jones' theories are that the moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government and the euro was a Nazi-hatched scheme to control European economies." International Business Times, emphasis mine. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for the new reliable sources contributed. I'll be adding this information back into the article in a while and will post back here to let you all know in case you want to take a look at it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to throw in my three cents: while the new sourcing is very useful, I think that the Youtube videos pass muster because they are in the realm of claims about the person himself, ultimately, and not about third parties. The purpose is to show that this person promulgates conspiracy theories and not to discuss the conspiracy theories themselves. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The videos are not good by themselves. You're saying we could interpret the video as being proof he's a conspiracy theorist based on the SPS videos alone. That's OR. That would be like saying Colbert videos are sufficient to prove he's a conservative. This is exactly why we need independent sourcing for contentious material. They aren't claims only about himself and can't be sourced only to self-published/questionable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Avoid the interpretation. Just quote Jones, with full source (never a context-free clip). As for Colbert being quoted misleadingly, that's ruled out because there's sources to the contrary, hence it's "contentious". What on earth is "contentious" about yet one more conspiracy from Jones? Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It involves a contentious claim about a third party, whoever it comes from, and whether or not the source is considered routinely incorrect (because really? the more unreliable the source, the more of his self-published opinions we can document on Wikipedia? That's completely backwards). If we allow self-published and questionable sources to be an allowed source for random contentious opinions of third parties, then the Obama page could filled with Birther nonsense sourced only to self-published youtube videos, because we were "just citing a personal opinion". This is about sourcing. Ignoring guidelines, Jones wikipedia page could be a chronological list of every statement he's self-published, sourced directly and solely to every podcast and youtube video.

An example: "Mr Smith wrote on his blog that his neighbour Mr Jones is a big fat thief" is not currently allowed by policy on any article page if the only source is Mr Smith's blog. You can't say "It's just Smith's opinion" and you can't say the material had nothing to do with the neighbor Mr Jones.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your scenarios are completely specious. They only work as you say if you ignore existing guidelines. The reason birther claims are not on Obama's page is precisely because the only reliably sourced information we have is of the form "Smith said Obama is Kenyan", which is of zero relevance to Obama, even if the NYT quotes Smith saying this. Having a big mouth does not make one relevant to the topics that come out of the mouth, but may be relevant to the owner of the mouth in question. If such a claim appears in a RS, then such a claim can show up on a birther page, and they do. If only sourced from Smith's webpage, the only place it could appear on WP, as WP:ABOUTSELF says, would be at the Smith page, or closely allied Smith pages (his TV show, say), and so long as it is not contentious to claim "Smith said Obama is Kenyan". As I mentioned above, I would only accept his webpage as a source for this if we have RS evidence that Smith is given to saying fringe statements in general. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay just to correct something possibly dangerously misleading there, SPS can't be used if they involve claims about third-party living people. Period. It doesn't matter what page. You can't tuck it in a side page, you can't put it in an infobox. If the only source is an SPS it can't be used. You tend to confirm this yourself by saying you'd only use it if you had more sources than just the SPS. It has to be more specific than "often known to have bad ideas" though; it would have to directly reference the contentious material. Not indirectly or by editor assumption. ("Smith said Obama is Kenyan" involves a claim about Obama, even if it also represents a claim about what Smith said. Can't be sourced solely to an SPS.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But again, it's not a claim about Obama, it's a claim about Smith. You can only turn it into a claim about Obama by quote-mining or otherwise erroneously describing the source, and that's already not allowed. The proof is what I said before: if Smith is quoted in multiple RS, they are still not a claim about Obama, which is why they do not appear on the Obama page. They are not just fringe, they are 100% irrelevant. We do allow fringe when it's made itself relevant. (I believe most of the Republican agenda today is fringe, and some of it is probably officially WP:FRINGE, yet it makes it onto the Obama page since it relevant to Obama's career as POTUS.) Birtherism is 100% irrelevant. Lots of information about Obama is true, non-contentious, and ultimately, 100% irrelevant. (Count me as bothered by things like the Justin Bieber DUI issue that just showed up here. It's pointless trivia until he makes a song/video/SNL skit about it. In contrast, the Mel Gibson DUI turned out to be immediately relevant.)

Note that other WP rules may apply in your "big fat thief" neighbor scenario—any permit I'm claiming WP:ABOUTSELF gives does not override other WP rules no matter what—for example, if the neighbor is an unknown, BLP privacy restrictions do not allow even a mention of the neighbor, not even when non-contentious or outright flattering. By insisting on other sources, I am solely concerned that "Smith said X" may be contentious about Smith, and without RS-verified evidence/context that this is not contentious about Smith, I see no permit. (That is why your Colbert example doesn't work: we need RS to tell us Smith's similar statements are both of interest and on-the-level.) Any Smith statements about what other birthers have told him in private are similarly disallowed: as an SPS, his webpage may only be used for information about Smith. Whatever he says about Obama is definitely not information about Obama. Calling it information about Obama does not make it so, whether it appears in SPS or RS.

I am not responding any further on this issue. Choor monster (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe time to close this long discussion? Feedback has been given in the noticeboard, so the discussion can now continue on article's talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks all for the input. The edit is back up sourced by the original DB article and I added the IBT article too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ronald R. Fieve

Mysteriously tagged for deletion for lacking citations.... FinalAccount (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@FinalAccount: PsychCentral is user-submitted (not reliable), and "Lithium..." was authored by Fieve. Neither meets the requirement for a reliable source written about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding unlike the tagger, however the Lithium.... chapter is obviously authored by Fieve but it is not self-published. The other source is simply an extracts from Fieve's website which can be linked to directly instead (remember that WP editors are meant to try to improve articles in preference to fly-by tagging) and is perfectly acceptable as entirely basic biographical material from the source. FinalAccount (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

BLP watchers might want to chime in here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Have done so. Tabloid rubbish like that, even if not in a tabloid, does not belong in a BLP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has no basis in policy. Wikipedia reports what is covered in reliable sources and the incident has be covered in dozens of international newspapers. TF90 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the issue. As someone else pointed out in the discussion on the talk page, BLP specifically disallows this kind of material: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist..." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporting facts reported in international newspapers is hardly sensationalist. TF90 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past couple of days it has been mainstreamed, moving from tabloids to The New York Times front page, so it is now notable and I think the BLP issue is moot. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In a related manner, I've removed[20] the name of a person accused by Redditors of the breach per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Lloyd Webber

I have emailed the oversight team accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done--ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant - many thanks for your help DBaK (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Penelope Wilton

A grave error in your bio details of Penelope Wilton. True that she was at one time married to Daniel Massey,but Anna Massey is Daniel's sister NOT his daughter,and therefore Ms Wilton's sister-in-law. Both Daniel and Anna (both now deceased) were the children of Raymond Massey. Please correct. Thank you, Michael Sharpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.220.162 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are looking at but the personal life section of Penelope Wilton just says: "Between 1975 and 1984, Wilton was married to the actor Daniel Massey. They had a daughter, Alice, born in 1977", which appears to be correct per your message.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that all is well in the article and there's no error at the moment. (No mention of the ip's "Anna", only the daughter "Alice").__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Roberta Taylor

Could I get some eyes on Roberta Taylor, please? There's a newish editor working there and some of his/her edits have been a bit questionable, but I can't follow up at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So despite me contacting you, instead of engaging with me you've posted here instead? OK. What have you found questionable about my edits? For the small amount of detail I've added, there are multiple refs in place and is also all available in her book Too Many Mothers.

Wronghood (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like trivial tabloid gossip because a cousin didn't like how the family was portrayed in a memoir? If the material is tabloid-gossipy, it's not good for a BLP article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadi John

Should we be identifying three humans, by name, as possible candidates? At least two of them definitely aren't John... -- Y not? 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian

The BLP has strong POV piece based excessive quotes and 90% of text cited to the subject's own memoir and publications. Could use some additional eyes and aggressive clean up in my opinion. My assessment and recommendations for clean up can be seen on the talk page here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in attempts at making changes regarding this article; I would greatly appreciate some outside veteran editors to come in with a pair of fresh eyes and make some serious changes to get the article to conform to wikipedia standards. - xcuref1endx (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. Keithbob, thanks for bringing attention to this matter. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn

Additional eyes from experienced BLP hands would be appreciated here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to the problem, here or on the talk page. The last posting on the page is clear as to policy but ambiguous as to the material in the article at issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The material in question isn't currently in the article, but has been proposed for inclusion. Several previous versions were revdeleted by administrators based on BLP concerns. It centers on disputed allegations around a person's intimate relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see that it has been deleted. I'll watch the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been fully protected.--Auric talk 20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian Callinan

The controversy section is defamatory: Callinan did not give the advice that resulted in an abuse of process -- it was his instructing solicitors. The trial judge made no adverse findings against Callinan. The trial judge did not "refer the matter to the Attorney-General"(invalid citation). The proposition that the Attorney-General may have decided not proceed with the matter because of Callinan's judicial appointment is defamatory(invalid citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawandstuff (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NLT. Giant Snowman 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat. I've read the case citation provided and it doesn't support the assertions made in the controversy section. I'm just highlighting the fact that the material is defamatory and should be changed.--Lawandstuff (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lawandstuff: - I agree, that's not a legal threat. Any content that can not be verified in reliable sources can be removed or revised by anyone. Just make sure to leave a detailed edit summary and be prepared to explain your removal on the article talk page if challenged.- Mr X 13:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

jeffrey_fenwick

Dear Sir I have read an article posted on Wikepedia about Jeffrey (should be Jeffery) Fenwick in which it states that he has been diagnosed with Cancer at the Mater Dei hospital in Bulawayo. This is not true, he has not been diagnosed with cancer. He underwent an operation which was complicated by a heart condition ans is recuperating at my home in Bulawayo. (He is my father).If you would like more accurate information I will be happy to probvide it. Regards Jeff Fenwick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.194.123 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

–

Removed unsourced content. NQ talk 08:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kakan Hermansson

Swedish press is today reporting about a yet unidentified police officer who has used a computer inside the police head office in Stockholm to edit both the svWiki en EnWiki article about Kakan Hermansson. And I see now that it is true. She wrote some negative article about the police and now some angry policeman is discrediting her. Just giving you all a heads up to watch out if you have her article on your watchlists.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what being a lesbian activist will earn you. I've removed one of the edits and have left a note for the editor who, no doubt, has moved on to a different IP. Let me know if this continues, BabbaQ; if need be we'll semi-protect. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
One IP blocked, two edits rev-deleted, semi-protection applied. Yeah, total CENSORSHIP!!! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant accuser

I have the impression that WP:BLPNAME means his accuser's name is not allowed on WP. There was one editor who apparently was determined to get the name in despite being told repeatedly not to even mention it on the talk page. It's there right now: Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case#Name of accuser, serving no purpose of course. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rojda Aykoç

An editor, "Why should I have a User Name?", has been repeatedly altering text in the article so that it states fairly unequivocally that this singer is a terrorist supporter who was "arrested by a Turkish court for making "propaganda of an illegal organization"", rather than the article having the factual and calmly neutral was "arrested by Turkish authorities who alleged she made "propaganda for an illegal organization"". [21] [22]

The sources considered the arrest and charge as essentially a "put up" job. It was part of an attempt, using legal intimidation, to close down by other means public displays of Kurdish culture in Turkey after existing Turkish laws that made such displays illegal were relaxed due to EU demands. The fact that Aykoç never served a day of the 20-month sentence she got for just singing in public a song in Kurdish indicates that nobody (not even in Turkey) seriously thinks her guilty of a real crime. I should also note that Why should I have a User Name? is trying to have the article deleted. In his AfD, he himself called her prosecution an "absurd court adventure" and her sentence an "absurd court ruling" - but the sensationalist wording he wants added to the article do not suggest an "absurd" prosecution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, what's going on here isn't such a big thing since the quotation marks make it clear that this is a statement made not in Wikipedia's voice. It's an awkward and grammatically challenging sentence, and Tiptoe's version was better, but it's now gone anyway, courtesy of Boleyn. Why should I et cetera, it's probably best if you leave this article alone. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Dahngbay Zuu (Mr. Zuu)

Can someone check out this edit? It says the relatively unknown person "allegedly" was involved in violence, but it's not clear whether the newspaper is reporting what the police allege, or whether it's anonymous. Some of the material about the person is sourced to this which is the comment section of this website.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I checked it again and it looks handled by another editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent lack of reliable sources covering most-notable point about an actor's biography

As far as I can tell this person is only notable for a co-starring role in the 15th season of Power Rangers. I'm not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of the internet personality Linkara, who occasionally makes videos about the show. I got from the most recent such video (29:20~30:20) that the only thing that sets the actor in question apart from the dozens of other individuals who have appeared on the show is a rumour that he did something not nice. I came to Wikipedia to find out more and found an article that was basically a promotional page and of course didn't even mention it. The page history doesn't look good, though: it seems a number of users (IPs and SPAs, mostly) tried to add the information but it was removed as BLP-violation.

I can't find a reliable source that either verifies or disproves the rumour. The video I linked to above is from a series that is generally trustworthy, but the sole person responsible for it has occasionally uses Wikipedia as a source. I know the standard modus operandi in these situations is to leave it out, but isn't the standard modus operandi when there are insufficient reliable sources to discuss a topic objectively to delete/merge the article? Can anyone else find any decent sources for this topic? What do people say about merging the content into List of Power Rangers actors or some such?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, the fact that Linkara, who has his own online TV series on a fairly-exclusive website that he gets paid for, does not get his own Wikipedia article while each of about ten leads in a single season of a children's show gets one seems a bit odd. (If "online TV shows" don't get their own articles how does one explain this?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And what is the article, Hijiri? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is this one, as I indicated in the first line. Several edits from 17 June 2010 have been hidden, and one account was indefinitely blocked for BLP violations, which makes me think there might have been some serious issues with the article that are now hidden. This means, of course, that I can't see what exactly those edits were, but given this and other edits it seems almost certain that the issues involved the same ones I'm talking about. Additionally, this string of edits made the article into essentially a promotional piece. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ardian Fullani

There seems to have been a recent controversy in Albania regarding Fullani and there is a sentence at the end regarding it (though WP:BLPCRIME might apply). However the article looks like a press release / advert so needs a clean up and some references if anyone is up to it. I would but I don't have time at the moment. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Map of India shown from the OCHA source is biased and government of India doesn't recognize it.

The map of India shown on this site is biased and is not recognized by the government of India. The north most part of India i.e., J&K is a verymuch part of India. The reason being India is having it's control over this area which is not shown as part of India. This needs to be updated with the accurate map released by government of India. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proverbiumworld (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but this page is for discussing problems with article concerning living persons, you need to raise it at Talk:India but note this has been covered before with the comment that "The map shows the actual borders and all related claims; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China." MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Praveen Togadia

The subject is a very popular figure(1,88,000 Google hits). Link to disputed content which was re-inserted three times before any discussion on the talk page was started. It is present in the article as of now. I have never made any edits to this article, but I am involved in Indian politics area. Talk page discussion is here.

1. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 2. "The petition was endorsed by the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in its Editorial." is not present in the provided reference. 3. "according to an analysis in the press" is typical WP:GRAPEVINE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

These claims are a bit hilarious.

AmritasyaPutra is contesting the mention of a petition by Medico Friend Council against Praveen Togadia on the grounds that it is "grapevine". There are three references cited in the article itself: [3], [17] and [18]. The reference [17] is The Hindu, a national newspaper. The reference [18] is the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, a national journal of physicians. If we do a Google search for "Togadia" with "Medico Friend Council", we get 129 hits. If we search for him along with "Medical Council of India", Google brings up even more references. This is by no means a "grapevine". It is public information.
AmritasyaPutra also claims that the endorsement of the petition is "not present" in the journal. I see very clearly the statement "Shouldn't medical associations withdraw the license of Dr Togadia - and all others in the medical profession who have spoken and acted as he has?" which was precisely the content of the petition.
AmritasyaPutra also claims that the so-called "disputed content" was re-inserted three times before any discussion. When? By whom? I have stated on the talk page that I have re-inserted it only once, after the discussion started, after I have produced additional support. To be precise, the talk page issue was opened at 03:43 UTC on 3rd September, and I re-inserted the material at 20:16 UTC along with a reference to substantiate "notability" of the petition along with a response on the talk page Talk:Praveen_Togadia#Non_notable_controversy. No issues to do with BLP were raised on 3rd September.

AmritasyaPutra got involved at 08:49 UTC on 4th September, claimed that it was BLP issue because it supposedly constitutes "grapevine". Frankly, I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, You definitely gave a weird interpretation to what I said above.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you still don't seem to be changing the fact that every single news channel or journalist seeks for more drama and news. There is no guarantee that any credibility exists there. So a non notable petition by a school students is a blatant propaganda, violation of BLP.

You should not paste the refuted argument here, keep your explanation short and new. We are here to seek opionion from other editors, not to paste the arguments from talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reputable newspapers are reliable sources as per WP:RS. If you believe this is just "propaganda", you should be able to find other reliable sources that contradict it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is not a single reliable source that talks about 2012 in its own voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there was never one, even those fringe ones couldn't confirm. That's what I tried to say, representation cannot be that notable as long as it cannot be verified. DY made good opinion below. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 doesn't get the basic that not everything has a contradictory view published in RS. Why don't you interpret it such that no RS has every considered it worth spending their editorial space on such things? If someone says Aeishwarya had an affair with Salman, and may would say that, you are not going to find a RS which specifically says they did NOT have an affair. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The affected persons can issue denials and, if the denials are not printed, they can file defamation suits, which the BJP politicians have gotten rather good at doing, e.g., see [23]. Our policies say multiple reliable secondary sources are needed to report a BLP accusation and we have that in this case. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell

I wish to report a problem occurring with the Wikipedia site "Beatrix Campbell". I am not Beatrix Campbell, nor am I a relative or close friend. Like her I am a researcher and writer, and I know and value her work. Last year I noticed defamatory material on the site. I consulted Campbell and made corrections, with her agreement (see Cynthia Cockburn, 2 December 2013). Since then several seriously biased and hostile reinsertions and new material have been made relating to highly contested contemporary debates on the issue of child sexual abuse (4 and 22 August 2014). On 22 August 2014 I wrote to Wikipedia to ask for advice on procedure to protect or remove the entry. Robert Laculus replied helpfully on Aug 22 and this report is in response to his advice.

The entry "Beatrix Campbell" did not originate with Ms Campbell herself. It has from the start contained serious bias, inaccuracies and defamatory material. I can substantiate this in detail as and when appropriate. My question now is how can I deal with a situation in which the Campbell entry appears to be an arena in which certain parties are continually intervening to rehearsing longstanding critiques of evidence of child abuse in Britain.

As recently as yesterday, Sept 3, a long politically interested addition to this effect was made to the site. Much but not all of it was immediately excised - perhaps due to my previous reporting of a BLP problem. I have myself intervened today (sturdytree, Sept 4) to revert to a brief factual rendering that is to the best of my knowledge accurate and unbiased, and has been verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell.

I understand from the Wikipedia website that there are two possible resources for dealing with such a case - one is called "blocking" and is to prevent further interventions by identified persons. The other is "protection", whereby an administrator may agree to protect or semi-protect pages when convinced that inappropriate material may be added or restored. This seems to me to promise a more satisfactory and enduring solution, since there appear to be not one but a 'community' of parties engaged in combat with Campbell via the site.

I would urgently appreciate advice of administrators as to whether one or both of these steps is appropriate and possible in the present case, and guidance as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sturdytree: I just took a look, and the first half of what you removed appears to be reliably sourced, and the what was in the article was what was in the source. The portion where it says the team investigating was friend of ... was not in the article at all, and that could be removed, but not the first half. Can you explain why you'd remove the whole paragraph ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that sturdytree is interested in expunging unpleasant but well sourced material from the article, against WP:BLP. I don't like where this is going. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this person, and I can't rightly figure out what they're trying to argue here, but Sturdytree's recent edits look fine to me. The fat paragraph they removed contains names that probably shouldn't be mentioned, and accusations of undue influence sourced to tabloids and sustained by innuendo, with the addition of (unacceptable) primary material (court documents). I'd like for a smart person like Newyorkbrad to have a quick look--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, we may have to go back to this version. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I entirely support the removal and redaction of the sep 3rd edit, but I don't understand the suggestion to stubbify the article, as I think that though the source for the recently removed sections (the Mail) is distasteful in itself, it is accurate in the facts used. Campbell was a figure in an unpleasant episode in the recent history of the NE of England, to wipe it away is not what wikipedia should do. The article as it stands shows her notability (OBE anybody?) but is lacking in important detail due to the most recent edits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy the dog. Just because some media (media that Drmies labels "tabloid") have chosen to cover a story, and others have not, does not mean that the basic facts of that story as related in those media are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sturdytree has not stated that there is any core untruth in the content that has been deleted, all that editor is saying is that the subject of the article has said that she disagrees with the content. Since when has the content of a blp article required to be "acceptable" to the subject covered? I find the assertion by Sturdytree that this article must be "verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell" to be very troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, for the hell of it you should click on the "next diff" link in that early version and check out the sourcing. Or you can go to a more recent version, before Sturdytree got to it, and see what the sources are--one from the Guardian, sure, but then there's court documents (unacceptable in a BLP) and an article from the Daily Mail, also unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, please cite some discussion that places a blanket ban on using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP articles (or Wikipedia articles in general if there is nothing blp specific). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's a tabloid, a gossip rag. I'm sure John can easily point you to such a discussion, but let's establish first that common sense is of great help here. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds awfully like an "I just don't like it". You are the one wanting to exclude this source as a source, so it is really up to you to back that exclusion opinion up (if you are still holding to it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, The editor that is responsible for firing my enthusiasm for wikipedia has said that there are three things you need to be successful here. Sources, sources and sources. In this particular article, I'd add a fourth source! The article version after your stub link above is truly terrible, and clearly, court documentation (that doesn't seem to be available) which is the report of a Judicial Enquiry into the biggest child abuse scandal in the UK last century, is an unreliable source. In my own noodling around (I'd hardly call it research) on Google, I have come across the European "right to be forgotten" notification on two different related names. I too would like to know if there is policy or guidelines of some kind which rules out the "Fail" as a source? (forgot to sign, sorry)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, if I were certain about everything here I would have already nixed the section and deleted it from the history. I'm not that certain about tone and content so I haven't. That the Daily Mail is in general not to be used for BLPs, and especially not when it comes to Horrible Crimes and Suggestive Innuendo, that's, as I said above, common sense. It is a better idea to milk the Guardian article for what it's worth, and I may just do that. In fact, I'll ping a couple of folks with some experience in Brrrritish matters: Sitush, Eric Corbett, if you have a moment, will you please have a look at this discussion and the article? Your help is appreciated. Thanks Roxy, Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The BLP policy is quite specific about the use of tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail.[24] Eric Corbett 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that. The BLP policy talks about "tabloid journalism" - that is, if the source (i.e., the article or commentary or editorial or whatever containing the material) is written in an overly sensationalist "tabloid" style it should not be used if it is the only sourcing. I have not looked at the sources in question so I do not know their content or the journalistic approach. But if it is the August 3, 2002 story titled The Witchfinder we are talking about, except for the typical ott headline and the synopsis-blurb (or whatever that is called), it seems non-tabloid in style. Anyway, I see no blanket ban on stories originating in the Daily Mail, or even in using Daily Mail sources written in a tabloid style as long as there are other sources that consider the same story in a non-sensationalist way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't use the Daily Mail for BLPs or, indeed, any biographical articles. It is often highly sensationalised even when discussing people who by common consent lead fairly mundane lives; when there are suggestions of something out of the ordinary in a life, the DM almost always goes overboard. Sometimes they do it subtly, more often they take a hatchet to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The present state of the article is unsatisfactory. It is mostly written from a wholly uncritical perspective. Campbell (like others) badly and publicly burnt her fingers over the Satanic abuse affair, and it should not be expunged from the article because it is now awkward for for fans. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The subtopic at issue does not strike me as necessarily off-limits, but it should be given only its due weight, and the most reliable sources available should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sturdytree" suggests above that they were previously responsible for this edit as "Cynthia Cockburn." Both IDs are responsible for the removal of a significant paragraph on the BC page, claiming it was "incorrect" and "malicious," yet at no time have they attempted to explain those edits on the article Talk page. As others have noted above, these edits seems to be aimed at removing historical detail that in retrospect may be embarrassing to the subject, though not untruthful, which doesn't seem very surprising, given the editor's acknowledged collusion with the subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Something more on using the Daily Mail as a source. There are a number of sources around that claim there is a deliberate silence on this subject from media sources, and that only the Daily Mail has dared tackle the subject. As an example: about the Haut de la Garenne story, "The Sunday papers, however, are almost completely free of such self-criticism. The only detailed report which carries the story forward in significant respects is, as might have been expected, by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday. His substantial article, 'How Lenny lost the plot', appears in the Review section of the paper. It provides an excellent summary of the main points of the Haut de la Garenne saga for which one can only be grateful. Indeed, given the grave implications of the story which he relates, it is both astonishing and depressing that none of the broadsheet Sunday newspapers has even attempted to run a similar investigation." [[25]]. Here we have a journalist who wrote for the Observer, Telegraph, Guardian, etc, praising the investigative contribution by the Daily Mail, and is saying that because of that paper's history in investigating this subject area, this positive contribution was expected. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy vs. WP:BLPCRIME

Article is Indictment of Rick Perry

Afronig wishes to insert the word "allegedly" in the opening sentence. [26] I contend this is incorrect as indictments don't use "allegedly" in their wording (neither does the source). Bringing this here as any decision could affect a multitude of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Compare "X was indicted on the charge of first-degree murder" with "X was indicted for allegedly killing his wife". The second one needs an "allegedly" while the first one is clearly a charge name and does not. It has to be clear whether we're talking about what actions they allegedly did, or clearly talking about the formal legal name of the specific charge they were indicted for. If the phrasing in the article isn't clear it must be made clear.

In your supplied diff, it's being done incorrectly either way. The "allegedly" is being put in weird inappropriate spots. It's clear from sources that the threat of veto and the request that she stand down happened. Those shouldn't have "allegedly"s unless there are sources that put those events in doubt. "Allegedly" could arguably be put in front of "abusing his official capacity" or "coercion of a public servant" unless it is made crystal clear that those are the formal names of the charges, and couldn't be confused as our description that the events were "abuse" or "coercion". If there's still any reasonable chance of misreading, try putting the charge names in quotes or re-writing. It wasn't an "alleged" veto, the formal name of the charge is not alleged, but if we have written the sentence too loosely, it is "alleged" abuse and "alleged" coercion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The article said in essence was charged for this for allegedly doing this. Allegedly is used in the correct spot, in my opinion. In the Perry case there are both disputes as to law and to fact. Afronig (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Indicted is not the same as "proved". BLPCRIME will prevail, especially as Perry pleaded "not guilty". YES for "alleged". Lindashiers (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the passage in question:

On August 15, 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity by allegedly threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit, a state public corruption prosecutors department, and for coercion of a public servant, in regards to allegedly asking the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, [2] after she was convicted of drunk driving, and incarcerated.

By the simple fact that an indictment is an accusation (and therefore implicitly alleged), adding allegedly is redundant, and it runs afoul of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV.- Mr X 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The "allegeds" in that passage are wrong, as written. It is not "alleged" that he threatened to veto or asked for a resignation, the sources say he did that. The only thing that could be considered "alleged" is that the threat constituted abuse or should be described as illegal. It's not "alleged" that he was indicted on specific charges.

Here's the difference shown in the Washington Post, where it's written in a way that requires a version of "allegedly": A Travis County grand jury on Friday indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts, alleging he abused his power by threatening to veto funding[27];

and here's an example in the Dallas News showing how it doesn't need "allegedly" when it's written this way: A Travis County grand jury on Friday charged Perry with two felony counts, abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant, after he vetoed funding for a county office that investigates public corruption.[28] __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think our current wording is awkward. "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity... " should probably be edited to read "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, on charges of abusing his official capacity... ", or something like that.- Mr X 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that works better, or something similar. It's better to be specific about the part that is a specific charge, and call it that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever gets across that he was 1. indicted on specific charges of "abuse of official capacity" (specific charge, no alleged), or 2. indicted for allegedly abusing his office (non-specific charge, alleged) because of 3. the veto stuff and calling for her resignation, which everyone agrees happened so shouldn't be termed alleged.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

on charges of abusing his official capacity... is much better wording, and avoids the need to over-use "allegedly" - Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

on charges of abusing his office... is even better IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

This article desperately needs attention from BLP-minded folks. Lots of pejorative epithets, unfounded accusations and piss-poor sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

By Lots of pejorative epithets, he means 'Social Justice Warrior' (no source for it being a ' Lots of pejorative epithets' btw.) By unfounded accusations and piss poor sourcing, he means The Guardian. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, "social justice warrior" is a pejorative epithet, and by "no source" he means this one, or hell, even this one, which, while not a reliable source, is a pretty clear indication of the meaning of the term. Your disingenuous argument that it's not an insult is self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I see, the article doesn't name anyone to be a "social justice warrior" but instead it's attributed to the discussion around GamerGate - the Guardian discusses the social justice warriors as well. These are opinions from WP:RS and belong to the article. Similarly, the article mentions that the other side is being characterized as "misogynistic" - yet it doesn't name anyone specifically to be one either. It isn't a BLP issue. --Pudeo ' 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good analysis. There are known statements that I could from that say "X is an SJW", but it doesn't make sense to include them, and simply leave it has broad claims made by one group to the other, and vice versa. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Right - the current version is acceptable because it explains that the term is an opinionated statement considered to be pejorative. That version hasn't always been there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Social Justice Warrior" is being used as a pejorative by some elements of the online right wing, yes; I've had the epithet hurled at me a time or two myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen people describing themselves as Social Justice Warrior with pride, so no, it isn't definite that it is pejorative. Article in Pastemagazine is very emotional and engaged, so not really sure if it can be treated as objective source of information.However to avoid unnecessary drama, we can always attribute the description making it clear that this is a description by one of the sides of the controversy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This needs some additional eyes on it, as it's a mess even with protection. It really needs admin attention to keep the discussions from veering into BLP territory. Unfortunately, I can't be much help in that regard now that the article includes Anita Sarkeesian, as I'm involved in editing that article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Paulin

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

The article places significant undue weight on one poem that Paulin published in the Observer in 2001. Paulin's entire life and works as highly notable author, lecturer and pundit are poorly summarised in just 370 words, while his opinions on pro-Israel politics and the phrase "Zionist SS" in a poem in 2001 has been given 680 words in the article. This is not what he is most notable for. Could someone look at addressing this imbalance please? --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A tad past "significant undue weight" indeed. I cut the section in half, but it might be pruned further. Collect (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to be careful here. If the notability of this person is predicated in his controversial poems and ideas, then it is not undue weight. We are here to reflect what significant views are reported about a person. If the author has other works that received coverage and were reported in RS, then add these for balance, but don't delete material just because it is controversial in BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This removal of more that 4,000 characters [29] is totally unnecessary. You can instead attempt to summarize the content rather than delete statements by Paulin and his critics. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the section fails UNDUE by a mile -- that you seem to think more than half a BLP should basically say "this loon is really anti-Semitic" is not sufficient for Wikipedia to violate the strictures of the WP:NPOV non-negotiable policy and the WP:BLP policy as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also "amused" that you gave a lengthy reinsertion of the Labour Party connection when you then had to DELETE what was basically the same material! PLEASE abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV no matter how much you hate someone. Collect (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not hating anyone. This person's notability is directly related to a great extent on his controversial statements. Do some research on this person before you jump the gun. Your edit removed material and kept material that responded to the deleted material. That is not good and contrary to NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And as one that forcefully ask others to assume good faith: The pot calling the kettle black - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with some of the "controversial" statements Paulin has made, so your response and assumption that I hate the guy are completely out of place. Paulin speaks his mind and rattled some of the establishment with some comments. Good for him, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)

This BLP is not precisely nice to the person -- but I find the adding of iterations and permutations of "conspiracy theorist" to tax the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and I am offended by such edit summaries as this belongs in the lead, being a nutjob conspiracy theorist is what put him on the map and Collect: you'd be wise to cease your edit-warring. Rm the nitpicked "nutjob" word from the summary and it still applies. Again: stop edit-warring' to indicate a certain POV and uncivil attitude entirely. The fact is we make clear a few dozen times that the man is a loon, but loons damn well are as protected by Wikipedia policies as anyone else, and the idea that we can really really really hit the man with an editorial sledgehammer just because we can is not my idea of how this project s intended to work. Other opinions welcome on just how nasty we ought to be to a living person. I would note that one of the participants in this "how nasty can we be" exercise is doing the same on other BLPs. Collect (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit that you've reverted seems okay to me, well in conformity with WP:LEAD. This is the wrong place to complain about behavioural issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you've failed to provide any diffs, sources, or specific content, so it's unclear what sort of input you'd like from this board. Your complaint consists mostly of aspersions cast at another (un-named, and un-notified) editor, which are impossible to evaluate given the complete lack of diffs or other supporting evidence. Glancing at the article history, I see you and Gaba p (talk · contribs) are involved in an edit-war, and are both at or over 3RR right now. You appear to be edit-warring over the placement of properly-sourced material; this is not a protected category of revert, so you're both angling for edit-warring blocks with your current behavior. In the future, please use this board more appropriately; specify the BLP issue you're concerned about; provide diffs instead of casting unsupported aspersions at other editors; and notify editors when you are complaining about them here. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Violation of due weight is, indeed, a policy violation, and I am aghast any admin would fail to notice that. There is a substantial majority of the entire BLP which is already negative in tone and wording, and the addition of yet more to the lead would violate WP:NPOV quite clearly. More than half of the entire lead is negative, and none is actually positive about the chap. I realize to some he may be the epitome of looniness, but that does not mean we accord "nut jobs" (as one editor calls him) less protection that anyone else in a BLP. Everyone with a BLP must be treated equally. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Two points: First, editors should not be calling living people "nutjobs" especially in edit summaries (which cannot be changed without admin intervention). Second, I read the lede (as it currently stands) and I don't see anything objectionable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both points. (Since Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs, the "nutjob" edit summary is here for anyone wondering). MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not the one using that epithet. The edit summaries are at [30] and [31] where the editor deliberately iterates "nutjob". The "controversies" already make up a majority of the lead and to pile Ossa on Pelion should not be countenanced by any admin who knows that analogy. And the use of ad homs admins is, regrettably, something the admins will someday have to face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to me, since I'm the only admin who had commented to date. I guess I don't see the "ad hom". I gave you some guidance on how to file a more useful, constructive request on this board. And I reminded you of some of this site's basic behavioral expectations (provide diffs; don't cast unsupported aspersions; don't edit-war; notify people when you complain about them on a noticeboard), which you'd neglected. My goal is for you to be able to frame your future requests in such a way that editors can give useful feedback, and also to make clear that edit-warring in this case (both yours and GabaP's) was inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect is apparently incapable ... appears to be a direct comment aimed at an editor -- which to most people is a clear ad hom. Apparently you do not think a derogatory comment aimed at a specific editor is an ad hom, but I suggest you buy a dictionary if that is, indeed, your understanding of that term. "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments." "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs" is an expression of frustration at your repeated refusal to provide diffs to support your concerns and your aspersions against other editors. You've been here long enough to know that doing so is a basic expectation, but even after prompting you refused to post any actual diffs. Regarding "ad homs", I don't think I failed to "answer your contentions"; rather, I answered your contentions by clarifying that you need to provide specifics and diffs in order for others to evaluate them. When you simply repeated your contentions without any evidence that you'd read or understood anything anyone else had said in response, I became a bit frustrated, hence the "apparently incapable" remark. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

REPEATED REFUSAL???!!! Um -- look at the damn time stamps and note all my "repeated refusals." You will find no "refusals" at all, much less repeated ones in the three hours from my first post to where I give the diffs you snarkily say I "repeatedly refused" to give. Now simply (fill in the blank). And that you think that telling falsehoods about "repeated refusal" about an editor is the very essence of an ad hom attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are the timestamps: Your original post at 20:56 (no diffs). My response at 21:41 (asking for diffs). Your response at 22:20 (still zero diffs). At 22:39, I finally provide the diff which (I imagine) you had in mind in your original complaint. If I'm missing something, feel free to let me know, ideally on my talkpage to avoid further cluttering this thread. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Neat --- Now tell me where I refused anything at all in those three hours ? Amazingly enough, I do not expect a reply here. Collect (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You refused even to acknowledge that diffs were required, which you should know as an experienced Wikipedian. If your point is that you didn't explicitly refuse, very well. You tacitly refused to provide diffs by ignoring basic good practices and ignoring responses you received from other editors. Consider this a correction on my part. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Aha -- so my post giving diffs well before the three hour mark does not exist in your Weltanschauung? Curiouser and curiouser. You made an angry and abhorrent ad hom -- now you say I "tacitly refused to provide diffs" even though it quite appears that I did provide diffs, and never "refused" to provide them. Do you realize just how odd that argument looks? Collect (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(e) There are some people that make a living by being controversial, and Jones is one of them (there are a few others in particular on the fringe right). In these cases, there should be no problem in describing their controversies and positions in the lead. Actually we have to. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And they are already mentioned at length in the lead. The issue is when we use a sledgehammer approach adding as much nugatory material as we can find into the lead and not just leave it in the body of the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for using "nutjob" in the summary, next time I'll be more careful. The point I made is still valid and Collect knows this. He keeps repeating that this information is already present in the lead which is not true. The lead merely lists some of his most famous conspiracy theories but makes no mention of any entity having referred to him as a "conspiracy theorist" except in the statement he insists in moving down the article, out of the lead. Given that this "conspiracy theorist" quality is precisely what made him known, there is absolutely no valid reason in attempting to obscure this fact. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean ignoring the fact that conspiracy theorist is in the very first sentence of the lead? And that the lead then includes several clear conspiracy theories? I suggest we are not trying to "obscure any fact" but are trying to abide by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a very basic misunderstanding of policy here. WP:BLP does not forbid describing someone as a "conspiracy theorist". It forbids describing them as such without strong reliable sources. If someone is, in fact, widely described by reliable sources as an exponent of conspiracy theories, then it is appropriate (and, in fact, mandated by policy) that we follow the sources' lead and describe them as such. A more rational and less histrionic discussion would be helpful here: if there are concerns about the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor, then which sources support the term? Post them, and let's discuss whether they support the term or not. Despite all the obnoxious shouting, I haven't seen any of the disputants here take this very basic step, which is the foundation for any meaningful discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is in the very first sentence of the lead, and is sourced. And shouting is sometimes needed when one fears another might be hard of hearing -- or did you really simply not notice the very first line of the BLP? Collect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but I fail to understand your specific BLP concern, which you haven't clearly articulated despite many loud and prolix posts on this thread. Is your contention that this material is properly sourced and appropriate in the body of the article, but constitutes a BLP violation if placed in the lead? MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the edit summary, does anyone have any specific concerns with this article? Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Please see this thread. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "see this thread" or any thread. If you or some other user have a problem with an article, it is your job to sum it up here succinctly. Editors monitoring this noticeboard are under no obligation to go to talk pages and try to figure out what an editor's concern is because he or she doesn't feel like articulating it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about my good-faith attempt to give you a link of my concerns that you had to give me a reprimand for doing so, please disregard. I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Cta was simply pointing out that it's your responsibility to sum up the issue here. Why should editors at this page be required to wade through a morass at the talkpage to figure out what your issue is? LHM^{ask me a question} 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If it can't be summed up succinctly, perhaps there is no valid complaint here. That's my takeaway from this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sum: And the conspiracy theories are already mentioned at length in the lead. The term "conspiracy theorist" is already sourced and in the first sentence of the lead. The issue is when we use a sledgehammer approach adding as much nugatory material as we can find into the lead and not just leave it in the body of the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the BLP issue? Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Using 3/4 of a lead to sledgehammer home a point is a violation of WP:BLP -- and of WP:NPOV. No number 2 is remotely needed here. Collect (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a basic misunderstanding of policy. If 75% (or more) of a person's notability derives from promoting conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for 75% of the lead to be taken up saying so. That's the essence of WP:WEIGHT. As best I can tell in wading through the not-particularly-coherent discussion here, there does not seem to be any serious contention that the sources are inadequate to describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist. The dispute (and purported BLP violation) has to do with describing him as such in the lead of the article. Is this correct? MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with using a sledgehammer to iterate what is already in the lead (about 75%+ of the lead) and piling Ossa on Pelion (85% of the lead). And using the outré excuse that it is somehow right to do this because he is a "nutjob". If so, it is more important to be conservative in our wording, not trying to beat him with that proverbial sledgehammer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect you can drop the "nutjob" argument now. I've already apologized for using it in the summary, it has been made exceedingly clear that it has nothing to do with the reasons why the sources should be in the lead, and it hurts your case immensely by demonstrating how little policy-based reasoning your comments contain. This person is known for being a conspiracy theorist. Period. There is no "sledgehammer" here, just reliable sources being put at use. I would actually move "conspiracy theorist" first in the description of what he is in the lead. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK -- right now with the added material, the lead is 93+% negative, 4% self-description by Jones. Removing the questioned material still leaves the editorial content of the lead at 92% negative. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Balanced? Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As argued in Talk, I don't see any "negative" content there. It is all factual stuff and a few opinions sourced to RS that express that he is a leading/prolific conspiracy theorist. - Cwobeel (talk)

I tend to agree with Cwobeel. It seems that the overwhelming sourcing of this article points to him being a leading conspiracy theorist. If it was just one source or if it could all be traced back to one smear campaign or one source of heckling it would be a different matter. But I don't believe that the emphasis in the lead on his conspiracy theorist aspect is a BLP issue or even especially controversial. I disagree with Cwobeel about it being negative. It clearly is, and would be a BLP issue if it was unwarranted. Does he even deny that he is a conspiracy theorist? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The opposite: You don’t reject the term conspiracy theorist? No. People now learn that that means someone who questions known liars in government and media. So that definitely means what heretics did during the Inquisition. I find myself proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother.[32] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then it is not in dispute, so I don't see a BLP issue here. If someone can point to one, or if the subject of the article has a ~~valid~~ complaint of any kind, then I'd like to hear it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

MONGO was once almost famous...[^{[deprecated source?]} lol]....nevertheless all BLPs should do no harm...no matter what one may feel about the subject.--MONGO 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I think in this case that no harm is done. We do have to police biographies for that factor. The fact that one editor used disparaging terms was definitely a red flag, and we need to act harshly in situations in which editors with records of hostility to living people are editing those articles. I don't know if BLP covers such a situation but it should. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:BLP about tightening up the BLP rules to prevent such situations. I don't happen to feel that Jones was a victim of editing by antagonists, but he is the kind of person who evokes strong feelings so I can see that happening. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the issue again? Is calling Jones a conspiracy theorist contentious? You bet it is. Is it reliably sourced? Hell yes it is. Other than the "nutjob" summary, which has already been addressed with a sincere apology, what else is there left to do? If the sources all have overwhelming negative information, we should too (phrased neutrally).Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Caprice Bourret

Would an experienced BLP editor be able to glance at the "personal life" section of this bio? Whilst most of the content there is linked to some sort of source, I'm concerned whether a lot of it is due, or balanced. From the talk page and history I see this content has been previously removed, and then reinserted, more than once. Some of it probably deserves a mention, but as presented now, it does concern me somewhat. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 08:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Noting that this has now been addressed: [33]. Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Begoon ^talk 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Nick de Bois

Nick de Bois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page on UK MP Nick de Bois reads as an advertisement for the MP's local constituency work, consisting mostly of largely non-notable local campaigns he has run, with references to irrelevant external sources and an overabundance of references from the MP's own website. This smacks of political (or even constituency/parliamentary office) editing and should be amended to conform to Wikipedia:NPOV and the standards of other MP pages. -Kez (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

[34] is the edit in question.

All charges against Bieber were dropped by Toronto prosecutors. This edit says that they could not "prove" Bieber committed the crime, but even the existence of the crime is not affirmed by the prosecutors at all in the first place. Bieber has a host of "allegations" still in his BLP, but retaining this one which rather implies he was guilty but could not be "proven" guilty seems to violate the spirit and substance of WP:BLP. (this charge was dropped on September 8 when evidence could not prove Bieber was the assailant seems quite weaselly to me) The Reuters article specifically does not assert what this edit manages to imply (the article says the prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the photo caption uses the words The driver had alleged that Bieber had struck him on the back of the head several times during an altercation. , and I fear "implying" truth of an allegation is improper. AFAICT, there is a reasonable inference that the prosecutors simply did not believe the specific claims of the driver, who also has sued for damages. Bieber may need anger management, but he does not deserve having his BLP implying he got off on a charge which we then reiterate just to make sure everyone knows about it, and then imply he may be guilty anyway. Collect (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Note also that the entire "legal issues" section has massive amounts of duplicated material and should be trimmed severely at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Yagman

This article could use some more eyes on it. The subject is a former lawyer and convicted felon, and there has been a slow edit war going on with IPs accusing each other of COI, whitewashing, vandalism, etc. The best version of the article might be somewhere between the two versions the IPs are pushing, and I was going to have a look through the sources to try to check for balance/undue weight, but the more, the merrier on this type of controversial BLP, I think. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting advice on Will Hayden

Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Wikipedia to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misapprehend: I don't believe this individual has notability that is independent of the TV show. Notability is not inherited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning that if this person was notable in the past, notability doesn't 'dissipate' so to speak, so if you're admitting that they were notable, you're admitting that they -are- notable. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I still wasn't sure what a Snooki was till South Park explained it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Wikipedia should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden victim

Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Wikipedia cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. If anything, it is complete censorship to withhold public information. Reliable sources have identified victim as Hayden's daughter. 9711CA (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Wikipedia, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the "AP" source itself, not a source that cites the AP, or only has a photo from the AP. Otherwise, it is withholding public information from Wiki. 9711CA (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. [35] Here's another [36]. Note the lack of identification of the victims. Also note that your source is the "gossip" section of sensational rag. --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of public information that is not in Wikipedia; it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a person who we have not yet considered separately notable, and need not be identified, even indirectly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM as the victim is not notable outside the crime and is not the subject of any articles. The event can be covered without identifying the victim and indeed, most crimes of this nature do not name the victim especially if the are minors. There is no information relevant to the topics covered in WP to name the victim and prolonging victimization through identification is simply wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is potentially likely to resurface with other victim. Noting material has changed though. No new charges and no new developments to the now-cancelled show. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The naming needs to stop

I've provided two AP sources above that comply with our WP:AVOIDVICTIM and BLP policy as requested above. They do not name victims. 9711CA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to try to insert the victims identifying information. It is not encyclopedic, is grossly harmful, indecent and unnecessary. The crime is rape of child. Multiple counts. It's covered. There is no indication that the victims are seeking publicity or that they are separately notable. Neither victim is the subject of a WP article. Nor does it appear that the identity of the victims would change the charges or the decision to cancel the show. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. @9711CA: has been asked before to not do this and appears determined not to abide by policy, consensus or decency. Do I need to propose a topic ban on ANI or can this be handled here? --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Schweich

An American politician whose article has been fluffed up considerably based on primary sources. I've reverted those changes, but the article could benefit from the eyes of experienced editors. There's a couple of SPAs in the history (no need for me to link them--you'll see them immediately) and I have warned the most recent of them, Bradleyhaberstroh, for non-neutral editing. (See also Google.) Anyway, your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there BLP issues? You may wish to ask for help on a different noticeboard. Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Yeah, it's a BLP and it's been fluffed up. He's a politician. This is an election year. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, yes. You mentioned primary sources, sounds like WP:OR problems. You mentioned fluffing up and the like, it sounds like WP:NPOV problems. You mentioned SPAs, could be WP:COI or worse. As for this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Are these problem editors also editing Schweich's opponent? And up top it also says: "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Perhaps we need an election-year noticeboard that cuts across issues, but until then, you haven't given any hint of BLP policy specific violations, hence my comment. Seriously. Choor monster (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. If someone's making a BLP non-compliant with WP:BLP, it doesn't matter if it's friend or foe, it's still an issue regarding a biography of a living person.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate: I asked about this noticeboard, not BLP policy itself. Your response doesn't seem to say a thing about this noticeboard. Yes, very good, BLP policy concerns several things: increased levels of verifiability, neutrality, increased sensitivity to privacy, and the like, and at one level, it does not distinguish, as you point out, the good or the bad. But BLP policy also stresses the urgent removal of one particular subclass of BLP violating items: the negative. And this noticeboard is, as I conveniently quoted above, primarily concerned with the negative, and recommends other venues for other extended problems. So whatever "obvious" point you were trying to make, I don't see it. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. BLP policy only specifically stresses anything about the "negative" if it's so bad that the whole page arguably has to be deleted; most of the issues currently on this board are not for situations like that. Otherwise it stresses the urgent removal of the "contentious". That is usually negative, and this board usually filled up with the negative cases. But positive or neutral material that is considered contentious when included should be removed quickly as well, per WP:BLP. If someone repeatedly filled a BLP's lead paragraph with how wonderful the subject was in bed, it would still be a BLP issue no matter how "positive" an editor could argue they were being. In any case "usually negative" is by definition not "only negative". Poorly sourced BLP puffery is a BLP issue and I never thought I'd see anyone argue it wasn't. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy stresses that contentious material must be eliminated immediately. Unreferenced derogatory statements inserted into a BLP are not resolved by deleting the article, they are resolved by immediately deleting the material. Unreferenced statements in general, anywhere on WP, are subject to removal, but not with the same urgency, we have a tag for that. This includes non-contentious BLP statements. (Deleting the article is for newly created attack pages.)

I have the terrible, seemingly unique, habit of reading manuals, support documentation, policy statements, small print. It seems that most people not only do not do this, they have absolutely no comprehension of the concept of reading such material, and make nearly random guesses at what I must be asking about, keying off a few words. In this case, I have no questions whatsoever about what BLP policy states. I'm not probing some border where meaning might be not so clear. I have been asking about what this noticeboard's policy is, since Drmies summary did not accord well with it. See explicit quotations above.

I'm perfectly happy with actual policy not being the same as written policy, having done my share of neglecting documentation over the years. I'm also perfectly happy with names being simplistic approximations. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like an awful problem, having a unique comprehension of words. I flurn for you. Your question specifically about the board has been asked and answered repeatedly at this point; This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. If you've found somewhere in the fine print that "issues" mean "only negative material, strictly defined" then you can point it out, but it will be news to the hundreds of threads this noticeboard has handled that concerned puffery, BLP-specific COI, general notices about news spikes regarding high-profile BLPs, technical changes to BLP templates, copyright issues specific to BLPs, requests made by BLP subjects, etc. and other things under the umbrella of "BLP issues requiring the eyes of more BLP-cognizant editors". There are multiple threads on the page now that are equivalent to this one, and it will be the same next month, as it was last month. The actual advice directing people to use this noticeboard is If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Concerns about accuracy and appropriateness have always been welcomed here, if they can't be easily dealt with in the article by the questioning editor alone. I hope User:Drmies is appreciating all the time he saved not dealing with this, as time is precious and once lost, does not come around here no more, as they say. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elaqueate, but I wonder if there is any value in continuing this. Apparently I don't know the place and its guidelines as well as I should, but then, I haven't made half as many edits as some others have, and I'm happy to be corrected here. If anyone is still around, perhaps they can close this thread; the BLP in question has seen no activity recently. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No reason to correct you; the Carl Dix, Nick de Bois, Bob Avakian threads currently active are identical to this one in general concern seeking feedback about the appropriateness of BLP material or editor behavior on BLP articles. Other examples can be found in any BLPN archive. If this is a closed issue I won't add anymore to it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Karl Racine

Karl Racine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article about a current candidate for municipal office in the District of Columbia. subject of edit war over last few days, previously had NPOV issues biased to smear the subject, but after very long recent edit has NPOV issues biased to paint the subject in a positive light and squash all negative information, despite significant media attention (subject is white collar criminal defense attorney). would greatly benefit from disinterested editors willing to sort through the sordid history and distill it down to relevant bits. -166.137.88.42 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article could benefit outside attention. This edit ostensibly is for POV reasons but I see no issue in the material removed. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Dix

The article is almost entirely primary sources written by the subject of the article himself. I would suggest opening it up for deletion for lack of notability. But some outside perspectives should come look at it with more experience and decide for themselves. Please check out this article. The article also seems to serve as a soapbox for the previous editors of the article who are likely part of the same organization as the subject of the article. --xcuref1endx (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Carl Dix is at least marginally notable. Please take a look at the BLP of his close associate Bob Avakian whose article has undergone a major and justified "haircut" in recent days. None of these articles should be "political leaflets" for fringe political parties. Similar attention can be devoted to this article as well. Use of a machete is highly recommended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue with these articles though is that they are generally watched over by members of the organization, so any changes are usually reverted back, so is there someone with administrative authority to look it over? See the Bob Avakian article, the changes it has undergone the past few days has already been reverted back to what it was. --xcuref1endx (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Kamrul Hassan Elahi

Kamrul Hassan Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article appears to be an autobiography. A few hours ago when the article did not have any references I added a WP:BLP PROD tag to it. Author responded by removing the tag and adding external links to the subject's (author's?) LinkedIn and Google+ profiles. By my reading of WP:BLP PROD (and please correct me if I'm wrong) removal of the tag requires the addition of a reliable source, which a social media profile is not. I re-added the template and notified the author; shortly thereafter it was removed again. I have since re-added it again. Input is appreciated: what do I do now? If I keep re-adding the template will it be a violation of WP:3RR? Did I violate WP:BITE in my interaction with the author? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PRODing it was OK, and I would not worry about 3RR in these circumstances. I'll keep an eye on it. - Cwobeel (talk)

Frankly, I think CSD A7 applies here. I don't see anything that shows this is a significant person. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the speedy. But for future reference, Richard Yin, please note the PROD rule: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a PROD tag from an article, do not replace it." Bold in the original. Don't restore a removed PROD tag. The user doesn't have to explain the removal; it's all in the linked policy. (It can be very frustrating, I know.) Once a PROD tag has been removed, the article will have to be either AfD'd or speedied. No more prodding. BTW, I see that you said you'd userfied it,Richard, but I think you forgot to actually put it on the user's page.[37] Bishonen | talk 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Not necessarily true. As the template documentation says, "If the template is removed from the article, it may be replaced in certain cases. Please refer to the BLP PROD policy for details." —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I did userfy it. It was blank at the time. I may have been too hasty. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Rawlins

Dennis Rawlins is an unsourced one-line biography, followed by an extensive discussion of various controversies he has been involved in. Much of the material appears to be WP:FRINGE to me. Many of the refs are simply to a journal and a year, without article name, author or page number making checking challenging. As far as I can tell, not a single biographical fact in the biography is well supported. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What a mess of an article. One approach could be to stubify and build from there. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done the stubifying (with some new references). Maybe you can do the "building from there" part. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Zak Ibsen

This is Zak Ibsen, the subject of a Biographical page. I have attempted to engage the editors of a page with my name as the subject, in a constructive manner, to correct the contents of the page. The results have not been positive, so request the page titled, Zak Ibsen, be removed from Wikipedia, as the information contained is not accurate. Thank you for removing the Zak Ibsen page from Wikipedia's Biography pages.

Zak Ibsen Zak Ibsen (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Zak, I don't think the article can be deleted, but in its current state the article is a stub, with just minimal and what seems to be accurate information. If there is incorrect information, please point it out so that it can be looked at. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as per Cwobeel, what is it exactly that is not correct? It seems the information you were attempting to add read far too promotional and was unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zak Ibsen: I'm sorry this has been frustrating for you. As this diff shows, user TheRedPenOfDoom correctly removed a large amount of unsourced and promotional-sounding material from the article. We can't have a "vanity CV" in lieu of a biography - we prefer a stub instead. You are welcome to add material, neutrally worded and properly sourced, or refrain from editing the article altogether. And we do not delete articles because the subject can't edit them to their liking. We understand it's difficult to write about yourself neutrally, and we understand that some aspects of subjects' lives sometimes cannot be sourced, and personal recollections by the subject are not acceptable, so that type of material must be omitted. But these things are not negotiable. As I said, we'd rather be stuck with a stub. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as the subject of the article with an inherent conflict of interest, Zak Ibsen should not edit the article directly. they should place sources and suggested content on the talk page and let a third party determine whether and how to include it in the article itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In the process of removing self-promotional content and tone from the text, a lot of basic, non-contentious content got removed as well (notably, his MLS tenure and championships and his membership on the Olympic and men's national teams). This left the text noticeably incomplete, even for a stub. I've revised the article to include the basic facts with reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean up! (But I will note that claims of being an Olympian and professional national athlete do in fact fall in the bucket of "contentious".) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up

I've been reading various versions of Sarah Palin's appearance -- one is here -- at an Anchorage party last Saturday night which, er, doesn't reflect well on her. (Another, which is fuller, can be read here.) I'm not advocating that it be added -- while I find this story very entertaining, I'm undecided whether it's notable -- I figure an edit war is waiting to break out over adding it to one of the articles about Palin. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Malik Mohammad Jehangir

In general, you find reliably published sources that discuss the subject and present the the contents of those sources in the importance that mainstream academics view them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Baugh

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

The lead of this article is currently being edited to say that Baugh's young-earth Creationist views (and use of "science" to flog them) have been "challenged" or "questioned", instead of debunked by scientists. The language desired by other editors is a violation of WP:FRINGE, in my view -- especially as that language suggests that Baugh's views might actually be right. When these views include the notion that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, I think we're well over the line of doing a disservice to our readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

[1] Details of the Case against Pramod Kumar in the court of ACJM

[2] FIR number 153/2006 Pratap Nagar Thana, Udaipur. (Ganeshpura, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan ( East ) – 313001 PH: 0294-2490499

[3] Charge sheet number 163/2006

[4] Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 1, reproduced here

[5] Request for Action against Dr P.K. Bajpai, letter from the Rajasthan State Commission for Women to the Commissioner for College Education, n.d., Page 2, reproduced here

[6] Charges under sections 354 and 509 of IPC: Court of ACJM-1 - Neelam Sharma (court no. 13) Udaipur, Rajasthan

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]