Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

---

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

Additional notes:

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

Nikki Yanofsky

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

Sources seem clear enough to me in support of our stating in our article that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, yet it is being objected to. It is being discussed at Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views. Can we have further input from others?

It was brought here previously, by me. There is an additional source at this point in time. Here we have the previous discussion at this Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? Or is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project. (BTW, has anyone ever seen him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the article, it is a prominent part of her parents life, though her parents are not notable outside of the fact of being her parents. I personally don't see anything wrong with the current version. I do think it is obsessive ethno-tagging, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning her family background.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Andy, I thinks this is indeed simply more of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project, and no, I've never seem him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities. It's clear from the sources that her parents are quite active in the Jewish community, but it's not at all clear that the daughter shares this self-identification. Many religions and religious people, including Jewish newspaper sources, assume that a child is of the same religion as the parents: however, this is simply not true and kids frequently rebel. Niki may well consider herself a Buddhist or a Pagan or an athiest, we have no way of knowing unless she says. Given that she's a minor and hasn't make any declaration of religious affiliation, the most we can state in the article is that she is born into a Jewish family. Most people will read that as a Jewish identification and we've not put any possibly false statements into the article in the process.

As for Bus Stop's weak synthesis using such details as going home for Passover: many people go home for social events such as Christmas, Easter, Passover, and join in even though they don't consider themselves Christian or Jewish. It's a social thing and proves nothing. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But we do have sourcesThe following 5 excerpts from 2 sources would I think pretty clearly serve to establish for Wikipedia purposes that Yanofsky is Jewish:

"Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song".

"Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky’s career continues to blossom."

"Along the way, Yanofsky was mentored by many other Jewish artists, such as the composer Marvin Hamlisch, who featured her at age 14 at a Carnegie Hall performance in New York."

"“Performing in Israel was so moving. How can anyone, Jewish or not Jewish, not feel connected to the people there? I enjoyed not only performing there, but seeing all the landmarks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I definitely want to come back to Israel as often as possible,” Yanofsky said."

"“She comes from a close-knit Jewish family. Her parents, Richard and Elyssa, who manage her career, support many Jewish causes, including the Israel Cancer Research Fund. The singer will be home next month to celebrate a Passover seder with her parents and two brothers ." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Can you explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? If you can't, then your obsessions are best directed elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't intended to be therapy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

All the sources presented above which actually say she is Jewish (only the first two) are Jewish news sources which don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish, they make assumptions and don't provide sources for their claims. The rest are unusable because they rely on implication or interpretation, which we don't allow on any articles, much less BLPs. None of the last three directly state that she is Jewish. They say some other artists are Jewish, that Yanovsky found performing in Israel "moving", that her parents are Jewish, and that she will be at home for Passover. I attend seders, but that doesn't mean I'm Jewish. None of these are reliable sources for this specific detail, and none establish that even if she is Jewish that it is a significant part of her notability. Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the "five" sources you present above are only two sources. The first two are one article, the last three another article. When you present sources, please try to do it in a way that is not misleading about the number of sources involved, hmmm... Yworo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—the content of an article is not limited to that which shows a clear relation to notability according to my reading of policy:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. What limits this is discussion on the talk page with regard to reaching an editorial decision regarding the significance of such matters. As always, it is for those wishing to assert significance to provide evidence of such. So where is this evidence to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Yworo—you seem to call for "non-Jewish" sources. Do you find support for that in policies, guidelines, and essays?

And you say the 2 reliable sources I've provided "don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish". Do you have a source that would show that she might not consider herself Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources. Furthermore, it's not simply a matter of whether or not she is Jewish, it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability. Jewish sources can't establish that. Yworo (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you say, "…it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability."

I find at WP:NOTE that:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

and:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list."

As applied to our article, wouldn't the above policy imply that "Jewishness" need not be "part of her notability"? Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It would imply that you should read the next sentence in the notability guidelines: "For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons". Now provide evidence of significance, or stop wasting everyone's time with your facile wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—we require reliable sources. You have not demonstrated that The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News are not reliable sources. Like all news organizations they have their reputation to protect.

So far you have not pointed to wording in policies, guidelines, and essays that might guide us in evaluating sources in the way that you are suggesting. Where do you find differentiation between sources on this basis? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "provide evidence of significance". Note that at this point in the article's evolution, it is not being suggested that this particular characteristic be expanded upon. All that is being suggested, by me, is that it be perfunctorily noted. Do you think there has to be great significance—like she has to be basing jazz syncopation on cantorial rhythms? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have still provided no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why Yanofsky's Jewish descent is of any significance, I'd assume that there isn't any. On that basis, there is nothing to debate here. Can somebody hat this section please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I am not seeing any support for her having any religious views, is there some support for that claim? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say you see no "religious views." Bear in mind that Wikipedia is "not finished". If "religious views" come to light they can be added at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

note - the post above from user:bus stop is posted out of the timeline and confuses the discussion making it look like a post from user Griswaldo is a reply to the user bus stops post but this is false, the post above is actually posted after the one below - Yes, indeedy, but that is not the question - so clearly we have not reliable support for her religiousness. As I had a look at the content and the reliable support is very good at present and without more reliable reports this is well resolved, a quality update, thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you unhappy with the current state of the entry, which mentions her Jewish upbringing but says nothing about her own identity? If you are happy with the current state then there is nothing more to discuss. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you mention "religiousness" but of course that is not the issue. This was my edit to the Yanofsky article:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

I believe the above edit to the Personal life section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that "Yanofsky is Jewish" supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of [diff] don't you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop this is a repeat issue with you adding "Nikki/Jonny/Harry - who is a Jew" as if it is a primary notability. George who is Christian ... its your primary interest but not readers or wikipedias. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. What we should be discussing is whether the fact that Yanofsky is of Jewish descent is of any significance to the article. Since you utterly refuse to explain why you see any significance to this, I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Wikipedia as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - topic ban for user bus stop from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. its a repeat issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've brought this up on AN/I before and failed to establish as topic ban; however, Bus Stop's behavior appears to have gotten even more obsessive since then and I still support a topic ban. Yworo (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Off2riorob—do you want Wikipedia to be a petty battleground? Two sources devote considerable commentary to Yanofsky being Jewish. One of those sources entitles its article, "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song". Are you sure it is not one or both of you that should have your editing activities curtailed? Jewish identity for the subject of a WP:BLP can be stated in a straightforward way—if doing so is adequately supported by sources. That is what this discussion should have been about. Unfortunately my intentions to keep this discussion civil and especially on topic are taxed considerably by the battleground mentality that utilizes calls for "topic bans" as a response that should have addressed the issue at hand. All Jews are not merely "from a Jewish family." If sources say that they themselves are indeed Jewish, it should be within the realm of possibility for Wikipedia to adhere to such sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The petty battleground is your own mentality, even worse it that your battleground and issue is genetic and religious. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the issue at hand is whether Yanofsky being of Jewish descent is actually of any significance to the article. You utterly refuse to address this, and instead endlessly drone on about 'reliable sources', when reliability isn't the issue, but relevance. It is this refusal to communicate, combined with an endless pushing of the same absurd POV regarding labelling anyone possible as 'Jewish', that indicates your lack of concern for Wikipedia, and your utter disregard for objectivity regarding this question. This is why I suggested a topic ban. I've no doubt you could do useful work elsewhere on the project if you ceased pursuing this obsession of yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, bus stop...are you interested in anything apart from jews? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple sourcing question. If she's sourced as being Jewish, having Jewish parents, being of Jewish descent, believing in Judaism, "growing up Jewish", etc., that's a biographical fact and can be included as such. Whether it's worth including and how you word it (and I'm offering no opinion there) is a matter of editorial discretion, but a blanket abstract claim that one shouldn't mention a person's connection to Judaism unless it's sourced as being relevant to notability is clearly not in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. "Relevant to notability" has been repeatedly proposed and rejected as a standard for content generally, and there's nothing special about Jewishness that would require a higher standard. If the sources are unclear you have a WP:V issue. There's no BLP issue unless the sources are weak or in conflict. This is basic stuff. Let's move on, please. I'll assume good faith about the original poster's asking of this question, but everyone else ought to lay off on using yet another forum as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for personal attacks or efforts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If this behavior continues it's heading for behavioral RfCs or Arbcom, which is an unpleasant process unlikely to yield results that satisfy anyone.- Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the 'biographical facts' you state are not actually sourced, beyond her having Jewish parents. Secondly though, you are not addressing the question I have repeatedly asked Bus Stop: why is Yanofsky being of Jewish descent of any significance to the article? As for this going to 'behavioural RfCs or Arbcom' then if that occurs, so be it. Maybe this will finally settle the issue one way or another, and if the ethnio-taggers win, I'm sure they will all be happy in their endeavours to compile Tag-a-Jew-pedia, regardless of the diminishing credibility of the project. After all, it isn't here for the readers, but as therapy for the contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon - please read the citations previous to commenting, vague comments are worse than constructive, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec - before the above 2 comments) I've taken a quick look, and it's not entirely clear to me that there is strong sourcing to say she is Jewish in the first place. The sources are nominally reliable but the actual references seem to be passing and indirect - of the "like other Jewish artists..." variety in Jewish special interest publications, not a strong source flat out saying "She is Jewish" or "Her parents were Jewish" (in the latter case we would say just that, about her parents and not her). Weak sources do create a BLP question as noted. (after ec) Being of Jewish faith, background, religion, ethnicity, and/or parentage is a biographically relevant fact in its own right, like being born in a certain place or a certain year, attending a particular school, gender and nationality, or who one's parents are. We don't need to source the importance of any of these, we just report them when the sources do. The "tag-a-Jew" comment is rude and offensive; please desist from mocking people who don't share your opinion on the biographical implcations of being Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And you can demonstrate that there are biographical implications for Yanofsky being of Jewish descent ('Jewish' is ambiguous in this context)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no need to demonstrate the biographical implications of each biographical fact. That's not how biographies work here or anywhere else. If a person's parents were Jewish, or seamstresses, or from Poland, we just lay out the facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we make editorial decisions on which 'facts' to include in an article, based on their significance. Neither you nor Bus Stop have provided any evidence whatever in this regard. If you can't explain why something should be included, it shouldn't be. Or should we start adding shoe size to biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Start adding shoe size? It's already in Template:Infobox adult biography and Template:Infobox model, among others, and, assuming my memory isn't failing, I've removed a lengthy excursion on the subject from Uma Thurman. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know who this "we" is you're referring to, because it certainly does not reflect the practice of Wikipedia editors or others writing biographies. I'm not going to engage you [ATG] in yet another mock debate over your strange proposition that Jewishness isn't a fit subject for the encyclopedia. You want to compare it to shoe size and other nonsense, please take that somewhere else. We get it, you don't think Jewishness is relevant to people's life story so it shouldn't be mentioned. But this is a BLP notice board, not a vehicle for removing ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If the subject is reliably sourced, the subject is reliably sourced. If not, it isn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated that "Jewishness is relevant to people's life story", and in particular, that it is relevant to a biography that only exists because of a person's notability, then yes, if an argument is made that this is significant, then this should be considered for inclusion. What should not occur is what a few editors routinely engage in - looking for sources to demonstrate that person X is of their favourite ethnicity, in order to add another person to their list - this is basically stamp-collecting (or bus spotting?), applied to people. It us utterly unencyclopaedic, and serves no useful purpose other than to reinforce the ridiculous stereotypes that go with 'ethnicity'. It adds no useful content whatsoever to articles, except for those who share the same unhealthy obsession with shoving people into ethnic boxes - something that I'd have thought (perhaps naively), those with Jewish roots might be a little wary of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take derisive comments about other editors somewhere else, not here. If you think downplaying ethnicity will make the world a more tolerant place, you're perfectly welcome to that opinion. But insulting people who think otherwise is rude to your fellow editors, offensive to some, and off topic. Again, I'm not going to debate you. You've come to this board many times, and debated me before, over your campaigns to remove various ethnic-related content from the encyclopedia. If you have a content-related proposal that's what article talk pages are for. If you have a policy proposal to change how Wikipedia describes ethnic identity there are plenty of policy pages to discuss that. If you're going to be realistic about things you've got an uphill battle there because most people are just fine mentioning that someone is Jewish (or some other ethnicity, parentage, or religion) if the sources say so. This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not". Exactly. The correct place for such disputes is the article talk page, where the significance of such issues can better be debated. Bus Stop brought the issue here because he was losing the debate. Mainly because his obsession with labelling people as 'Jewish' is seen for what it is - an obsession that has little to do with article content, and everything to do with his own wish to apply stereotypes. I note that like Bus Stop, you don't actually offer any reason as to why Yanofsky's ethnic background should be included in the bio, beyond the fact that it can be sourced. Since Wikipedia isn't intended as an ethnobureaucratic database (as far as I'm aware), one would at least hope that those wishing to engage in such practices would offer a better justification for doing so than 'because I want to, and I've got sources...'. So tell us why it is of relevance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. reliably sourced -> ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. can be mentioned in bio. If an uncontroverted plurality of reliable sources say that someone's parents are/were Jewish then we can say in their bio article that their parents are/were Jewish. It's as simple as that and I'm not going to jump down a rabbit hole debating the whys and wherefores of such a basic biographical principle or the larger social issues behind it. I don't particularly care what axe you have to grind about the motivations of Bus Stop or any other editor. You obviously care about this in the context of avoiding stereotypes and oppression. I've already said that the way you have expressed some of that stuff is off-putting and potentially offensive to some. It's obvious from the state of articles, and the policy / guideline pages, that most people are okay with mentioning ethnicity if sourced rather than systematically downplaying it. That's the state of consensus on Wikipedia, and how bios are written off Wikipedia. Aggressively confronting people on the subject is not going to help win them to your case to downplay ethnicity. At this point we're talking in circles, and we've talked about this exact issue a number of times before, here and elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

- This was resolved earlier, its simple biographical detail, she is from a Jewish family, thats worthy of note in her bio, a simple comment like what we have - basically, unless she was adopted its an ethnic claim, its her roots - we have a cite for that she was brought up in a Jewish home and that is in the article - I don't see any reason in the right context not to mention that. There is no citations that dispute the claim ...so ....What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that, so we just add what we have, it just needs care and close reporting of the citations. One of the reasons such is an issue is because of the diaspora and the persecution, Jewish ethnicity was often hidden. If cited it is worthy of note in a simple comment. This is back here repeatedly, we need to give a little and just present ethnic issues like this in a reasonable way. Its not a part of her notability , just a simple fact of her life story and who she is and where her roots come from. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects to the current state of the article I'd like to close this discussion. This thread is not the right place for a more general discussion about the relevance of ethnicity in BLPs. I have my own opinion on that subject, but it's not worth sharing here. Can we please stop this discussion unless there is a current BLP issue that isn't resolved. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—are you an expert on Judaism? You say, "What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that…" Sources say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. Why are you questioning sources? Sources need not provide the details that you request—unless you are presenting yourself as an expert in the subject of Judaism. If at some future point information becomes available to us, that is reliably sourced, concerning synagogue attendance or any of the other points that you mention, then at that point such material can be added to our article. Wikipedia is not really ever finished. Related information that is unavailable shouldn't obviate inclusion of that information that is presently available and reliably sourced. In my opinion the salient question is: do we have sufficient sourcing to say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? I think we do. (AndyTheGrump raises what I think is a secondary question: should we include that even if it is well-sourced?) My argument is that we do not have to beat around the bush as far as Nikki Yanofsky's Jewishness is concerned. We need not consign her Jewishness to the present wording, "…was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'". There is more to it than that. In my reading of sources, they are saying also that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. While it is true that she was raised in a Jewish family, the more pertinent point is that she is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The way that the wiki works is that luckily all contributors edit articles - you are not required to be an expert of Jewish issues, luckily, such restrictive contributions would result in Jewish articles written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what we are looking for is a world view , a global understanding and presentation of this topic and not a narrow introspective involved position. As for your comments, you seem like a single voice with your position and as such your points have been rebutted previously and are unworthy of repeated response. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say we are looking for a "world view , a global understanding". I don't think that is correct. In my opinion we are looking for adherence to sources. Opinions can vary on just what constitutes a "world view , a global understanding". But the importance of adherence to sources to this project can't be overestimated. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that has been followed in this case extremely closely. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So once again Bus Stop responds with his usual 'Wikipedia must list every Jew I can find a source for' blather. Wrong. Sources are a necessary requirement for inclusion. They are not however a sufficient one. This in an encyclopaedia, not your own personal ethnic database. If you can't come up with a better argument than 'It is sourced, and I want it', then find a Wiki that supports your obsession.

And BTW, Bus Stop, your "reading of sources" clearly falls under WP:OR too. Not to mention that your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project by marking a particular ethnicity as more worthy of mention. If you were attempting to insert ethnicity into all BLPs, I could take this as merely an obsession, but your confining it to Jewish people demonstrates just how skewed your outlook is over issues of ethnicity, and is further grounds for suggesting you should not be editing BLPs.

With regard to the article in question, I think the statement that "Yanofsky was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'" is unnecessary, but if the consensus on the talk page is that this should be included, I'll not object. A statement that she is Jewish would at minimum have to clarify whether this was by ethnicity, or faith - and if the latter be self-attributed, and shown to be of relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project…"

Let me respond to that:

I didn't first add to the article that Yanofsky was Jewish. Nor did I bring the first of the two sources supporting that Yanofsky is Jewish. Nor did I initiate the section on the Talk page of the Yanofsky article called Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views—where the entirety of this discussion takes place at that article. In point of fact the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish has been inserted as well as removed numerous times, by others, before I ever became aware of this issue. When I became aware of the issue I posted my comments and opinions on the already in progress "Religious views" section of the Yanofsky article Talk page. And I also tried to insert the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish into the article. I was reverted. I did nothing for some months, then discovered that there was a new reliable source available that was also supportive of Yanofsky being Jewish. So I brought that to the Talk page and once again tried to insert that assertion into the article. That was about a week ago.

This is an issue that existed for many months at the Yanofsky article long before I even became aware of it. Don't forget that the first of two sources is from February of 2010; I first joined the discussion on the Yanofsky Talk page in December of 2010. I was not even aware of it before that point. If you look through the article history you will see numerous additions of the assertion that Yanofsky is Jewish as well as numerous removals of that same assertion.

I can bring diffs but I thought I'd just present the above as it is easier. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, if we set aside the broader implications and concentrate on the matter at hand (often a good idea) I think I agree with Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump. If we have solid sources as to simple biographical facts, e.g. Nikki Yanofsky was born to Jewish parents, it's fair to include that in the bio absent any particular reason not to. However, we cannot extrapolate our own declaration of identity from that (i.e. say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish herself) without sources. You could call that a BLP thing, or SYNTH, or opinion, whatever. The sources on whether she is Jewish herself are few, relatively weak, and subject to reasonable question (e.g. that passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive). We don't have anything definitive pro or con - no contradicting sources, no self-identification, and no sources to say that any of this matters to her bio, so the default position would be to leave that out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon—you say that, "...passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive..."

Do you find support for anything along these lines in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays, or anywhere else on Wikipedia? Or is this an idea that has never received any degree of community approval? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not rule-based, it's consensus-based. In this case, the consensus is clearly against you. The applicable policies in this particular case are WP:CON combined with WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—it might be worth noting that nothing supports the notion that a so-called "Jewish source" is any less reliable than a so-called "non-Jewish source". If your argument hinges on such an assumption, might not your argument be invalid? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:NEWSORG, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." That's what's being done here. Yworo (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—when you have two different publications supporting an assertion, that too counts for something. And they are publishing the same information approximately a year apart. These are factors that I think contribute to credibility. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of your opinion. I disagree with you. So do multiple other editors. Things are done by consensus here and the consensus is clearly and solidly against you. You have been repeatedly tendentious on this subject, and if you plan to continue further Wikilawyering on this subject, I personally hope someone starts another topic ban proceeding against you. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Simple question; does this person self-identify as Jewish? Tarc (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we have nothing presented for that, but she has not been/is not inserted in any cats in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO that is a pretty lear case against Bus Stop's position, then. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—is it your understanding that a precondition to our stating in the body of an article that a person is Jewish is a statement from that individual that they are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment What is the BLP concern being addressed presently? I tried to hat this discussion but Bus Stop unhatted it. If there is no longer a BLP concern being discussed take this somewhere else. I wont rehat this becuase I don't want to edit war, but seriously this is not a wikiproject about ethnicity or general BLP matter, but a noticeboard to deal with specific issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What is usually the case here is we don't usually bother hatting discussions, in cases like this where there is a single user refusing to accept consensus we usually just ignore them and the thread will close on its own. This appears to be a repeat issue with user bus stop and that may well require addressing if the pattern continues.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - i really don't understand. andy - you seem very headstrong that religion is not important in an encyclopedic article. we should go through every blp and erase christian, jewish, muslim, etc. because it is NEVER relevant to their importance because their voice is only what matters if they are a singer, and their acting talent if they are an actor, and their looks if they are a model, etc. but alas, the world we live in is not uni-dimensional, so an encyclopedia tells us the whole picture. she is of jewish parents, seems to be the consensus for now, so leave it. and if you really want to stick to the self-declared rule, i will happily start to edit lots of pages here, and people will not be happy about that! Soosim (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your threats to edit other articles are laughable - go on then - do your worst - Perhaps you don't get it as regards to en wikipedia - someone is a notable singer, their religion is irrelevant to that and is not a part of their notability , it might be what your interested in but that is irrelevant to this wikipedia, jonny is a notable singer, not a notable Jew that is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

off - 'threats'? sorry. not me. but i am happy i made you laugh. that is important to me. and i see you don't get it. jonny the jew is a notable singer. on his bio page in en wiki, his date of birth did not make him notable. (he is not a notable april 1, 1994 birth that is a singer - as you would say). his city of birth or residence, etc - those are pieces of what we call 'information'. nothing more or less. enjoy them. learn from them. that's what they are there for. thanks! Soosim (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes your threats, laughable threats - not because they are funny at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, Wikipedia policy is quite clear regarding making statements about the religious faith of living persons: this needs to be self-asserted. I'd assumed that this debate was about whether Yanofsky should be described as ethnically Jewish, where policy is less clear regarding sourcing. The point is that whether a persons faith and/or ethnicity are of significance to an article is normally decided by talk-page consensus etc. There is no hard-and-fast rule either way, though a few individuals seem to take the line that such matters are automatically significant in regard to particular faiths and/or ethnicities - usually their own. This is of course a gross breach of WP:NPOV. I suspect that one reason this debate is so contentious is because of cultural differences between US and other contributors. Certainly, in Britain, the need to identify everyone by ethnicity seems less pronounced that it would appear to be in the US. I also suspect that there are inter-generational differences regarding this issue, and of course educational level is of significance too. All of this tends to make for endless debate, and constant edit-warring over contentious cases. Frankly, I don't think that we will ever solve this issue entirely, but a littkle more honesty about motivations might help. Personally, I have no problem admitting to a bias against adding content regarding faith and ethnicity to BLPs where it is of little significance - but this is a bias acknowledged in Wikipedia WP:BLP policy which states that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". There is very little 'regard for privacy' involved in drive-by ethnotagging, based on questionable sources. There is also the issue that Wikipedia seems rather prone to getting such matters just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

andy - i edit many blps for christians and for jews. as i said above - not a 'threat' (oh my) but just a fact - i can re-edit them and remove all but self admitting ones. so many christians are listed as such, as are jews, but no attibution of self admitting. whatever. they might even be clergy, but have never said that they themselves where x. Soosim (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

so what - go and delete whatever you want - do it now, yawn, your squealing is nothing but empty worthless threats. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I found this thread of interest, but became lost somewhere in the middle. Or perhaps, given its length, it was the beginning. But, I'm guessing that maybe it is resolved? (hoping ....). I'll just point out one thought I'm left with. If Editor x likes the Yankees, and seeks to properly improve all Yankees articles (but not the Red Sox articles), that's great. Same if he likes to edit about cities in Siberia (but not about those in Namibia). Or dogs (but not cats). That's all great. Some editors here may have a POV against the Yankees, or Siberia, or dogs, but that is not reason for them to be critical of Editor x. Our project is built by editors editing on subjects that are of interest to them.

The opposite is not ok. If Editor y hates the Yankees (perhaps he prefers the Red Sox), or hates Siberia (perhaps he dislikes the cold), or hates dogs (those cat-lovers!), and Editor y seeks to eviscerate those articles improperly, that is indeed a problem. Just a thought. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do you feel about Editor X running from BLP article to BLP article adding the assertion "A Yankees Fan" based on the fact that the subjects parents might once attended a game? Would that be improving the BLP articles. John lilburne (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. First of al, do you agree w/my initial premise? As to your second question, as you describe it I would think there may well be a stretch. If it is nothing more than that. But hey -- I am dealing right now w/an editor who says that "Wherever there is a Yankee fan, I have to insert it if his Mother is a Red Sox fan". And ... he then deletes the fact that the subject is a Yankees fan. How's that for odd?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the initial premise is, other than people should be improving the articles, which seems like a tautology, but perhaps I've missed something. Question is whether the addition of all factoids, if facts they are, improves the articles. My view is that they should only be added if, and only if, they provide insight into the person and why they are being listed in the first place. Otherwise one ends up with an article that is full of irrelevant nonsense. I don't want to know the names of Isaac Newton's cat, if he indeed had one, the name of Erwin Schrödinger's cat on the other hand might be interesting. In neither case does knowing what religion their parents were advance any understanding of either person, and quite frankly labelling Schrödinger as an Irish Physicist (even though he was naturalized) is bizarre, and labelling him Roman Catholic on the basis that his father was is equally odd, one might as well label him English too as his mother was of English ancestry. None of this improves the articles one iota. John lilburne (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you say, "In neither case does knowing what religion their parents were advance any understanding of either person…"

Are you aware that sources support that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? Why are you focussing on the parents?

We have two sources—The Jewish Tribune and Canadian Jewish News.

The source which is the Canadian Jewish News is found here.

The source which is the The Jewish Tribune is best accessed by downloading the PDF found here. After doing so, search for the word "Yanofsky".

Each of the above sources, about a year apart in publishing dates, support that Yanofsky is Jewish. I am raising this issue now because it has been mere weeks since the second source was published.

The following is version of the paragraph that I am recommending for our Nikki Yanofsky#Personal life section:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

As sources are abundantly supporting that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, I believe that should be stated in a straightforward manner. Bus stop (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base its articles on what 'you believe', but on what the consensus is amongst contributors. Now shut the f*** up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…shut the f*** up." Less than a week ago we had a discussion at this section of the Wikiquette alerts page. Can we make renewed efforts to speak to one another in calm and measured tones even when we disagree? Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment struck out. But I consider your refusal to accept consensus, and endless insistence on pushing your ethno-tagging POV, to be entirely contrary to Wikipedia norms. You seek every possibility to raise this again, even in totally inappropriate contexts, and seemingly have no understanding of why others find your attitude objectionable. It isn't a matter of 'disagreeing' but instead it is your refusal to accept that you can't have the final say in matters that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to go back down that route - I still support strongly what we currently have, it reflects closely what is in the citation. Actually, this is almost historic and its a shame to open it up again over exactly the same point.Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you have 1,000,000 references, the question is what relevance does it have to the persons notability? Explain why if she was Calvanist (or any other religion) rather than Jewish she wouldn't have made it as a singer. Any entry on the matter should be low key, such as the current version. John lilburne (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No reference has been presented that she is a religious person at all has it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Only in relation to her parents. But if the claim is one of ethnicity rather than religion then the equal argument applies does it not? What is it about her Jewish ethnicity that marks her out as singer or is a significant factor in her career. Its not as if being of Jewish descent affects the larynx in any way, nor is there a taboo against people of Jewish origin becoming a singer. Nor is her background a significant part of her life. One isn't writing a about some girl from a poor Jewish immigrant family battling against poverty, and prejudice and making good. John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you say, "Only in relation to her parents" Can you please show me the source that says Nikki Yanofsky's parents are Jewish? Please show me the wording in the sources that says Nikki Yanofsky's parents are Jewish. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you contending that her parents aren't Jewish or that she has converted to Judaism? For a 17 yo with no professed claim of religion or ethnicity, any such claims by a 3rd party, that do not quote the subject as having self identified, are going to be based on the parental background. John lilburne (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses below to both Off2riorob and John lilburne:

Off2riorob—you pose a question: "…is (she) a religious person"? The answer is that it really doesn't matter. I will quickly add that I do not know if Yanofsky is religious or not—and if religious—to what degree religious. Please take careful note that no assertion concerning a degree of piousness has been suggested for inclusion in our article. The sentence (the entire paragraph) that I have been suggesting is as follows:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

The majority of Jews worldwide are nonobservant Jews. Sources are fully cognizant that a nonobservant Jew is still a Jew. I'm sorry to have to tell you but your opinion matters less than what sources have to say. Have you downloaded this PDF? In it we find, in reference to Nikki Yanofsky:

"Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song."

and:

"Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom."

There is also a second source—it similarly supports completely that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. Unless you are claiming special expertise in Judaism I don't think the article has to omit information because you may not regard it as credible. We don't assume that sources are saying that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish for no reason at all. Reliable sources obviously regard the term Jewish as having some significance, even though you may entertain doubts about the term's significance in the absence of assertions of a degree of religiousness. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you pose a question: "…what relevance does it have…"?

Content does not all have relate to relevance. From where are you deriving the notion that the content of a biography must all bear some relationship to a person's reason(s) for notability? Are you saying that it is inconceivable that a reader might not be interested in knowing that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? By most metrics, in my opinion, a person's being Jewish is not a completely insignificant fact. The number and types of stereotypes and assumptions that may arise in a reader's mind are to a slight degree predictable. We are not responsible for the pigeonholing that some readers may do with some information. But I think we do have a responsibility to provide material within certain parameters if such material meets verifiability and other requirements. Jewishness in many instances would tend to be one of those expected parameters.

Furthermore, sources to an extent serve as an indicator of notability. This source uses as its headline that the artist is Jewish. Have you downloaded that PDF?

You say that, "Any entry on the matter should be low key…" That is precisely what it does not have to be. The individual is Jewish. Just as we have a guideline against using peacock terms, so too would it be preferable to state in an incisive manner that the subject of the Yanofsky article is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have nothing to support she is religious at all, the strongest cite that includes relevance is what we have in the article now. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—there has been no suggestion that the article assert that Nikki Yanofsky is "religious", but rather that Nikki Yanofsky is "Jewish". Wording matters. We try to adhere to the wording used by sources. Since reliable sources are not saying she is "religious", we should not be saying she is religious. But on the other hand we should of course be saying that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish because that is what our two reliable sources are saying. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC

See, I am not getting that from you cites at all, its a unnecessary weak claim. - You know who is a Jew is different opinion by different people, you know nothing about her mother or her father, so its a weak assertion to simply insist on more than we already have in the article now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"to state in an incisive manner that the subject of the Yanofsky article is Jewish." For what purpose? Adding the label serves no purpose other than to forward some prejudice (positive, or negative). When ethnic labelling is simply the addition of a factoid it does not improve the article, it simply clutters it up, one might as well add in the brand of bikini wax if known. John lilburne (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—we take our cue from reliable sources. Reliable sources serve more than one purpose. They suggest the exact language, or at least within a range, the exact language—that we should use. Furthermore, reliable sources suggest to us what is notable about a subject. Two sources, a year apart, Canadian publications (Yanofsky is Canadian), have seen fit to report on Yanofsky being Jewish. That serves as a cue to us as to what material deserves inclusion in our article. The general pattern is that sources set the precedent, and Wikipedia follows suit. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The emphasis of an encyclopaedic BLP is not the same as the emphasis of two special interest publications. Not every thing that capable of being sourced is worthy of inclusion in a BLP article. However, I realise that there are far too many here dedicated to rounding up all the Philanders, Jews, Blacks, Gays, Roma, Muslims, Irish, and Catholics, for any sense to prevail. John lilburne (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—Sorry but factors of attributes of personal identity are certainly reportable. We are not supposed to be writing opinion pieces or presenting just what our idealized vision of these factors should be. People have these identities ("...Philanders, Jews, Blacks, Gays, Roma, Muslims, Irish, and Catholics...") and they are reportable. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are in no position to state anything about Yanofsky's 'identity' - it is up to her how she identifies herself. And whether we consider other peoples' opinions of the subject as relevant is a matter of editorial judgement. Just because you think that there is something important about being 'Jewish', is no indication that is significant (or even particularly meaningful) to others. Your insistence that there is something intrinsically essential about ethnicity is not founded in anything stronger than your own personal beliefs, and as such has no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "Your insistence that there is something intrinsically essential about ethnicity is not founded in anything stronger than your own personal beliefs…"

I have never stated any "personal beliefs" in Wiki space. Please don't convey the impression that you know anything about my "personal beliefs".

Further, you say "...it is up to her how she identifies herself" Do you have any source indicating that Yanofsky might not consider herself Jewish? If so, please bring it to our attention.

As concerns material for placement in the body of a biography "self-identification" is not required. You may be thinking of WP:EGRS (Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality), which would require "self-identification". Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that nonsense from? WP:BLPCAT refers to categories and says that: "should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" The final paragraph of that section says: "These principles apply equally to biographies of living persons, lists, navigation templates ..." So what makes you think it is OK to insert stuff into the body of an article when you can't add a category? John lilburne (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you ask, "…what makes you think it is OK to insert stuff into the body of an article when you can't add a category?"

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers. The same is true for lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements. None of these entities carry disclaimers or modifiers. Contrast that with the text found within the body of an article. Text found within the body of an article can contain disclaimers and modifiers. Using full sentences, editors can articulate exactly what situation applies to a given individual, especially where "grey areas" may exist. The requirements for reliable sources do not have to be as stringent in one instance as compared to the other. Categories for instance have no capacity for expressing "grey areas". Thus placement in Categories calls for greater stringency in sourcing requirements. Conversely, lower stringency of sourcing requirements applies to material found in the body of an article. In keeping with lower stringency of sourcing requirements for material found in the body of an article "self-identification" is not necessary. Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

12 days ago you were told that no one gave a shit about your sources, that you needed to show why "she is Jewish" is more relevant to article than "she was was brought up in a Jewish household", given that there is no self identification. 12 days later, you are being told that no matter how much whining you do, baring self identification, you will not get consensus here to add "she is Jewish" into the article. John lilburne (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—your above post suggests that you still do not understand that policy does not require "self-identification" for placement in the body of the article of the sort of material we are discussing.

The second point that you dwell upon is that of "relevancy". Are you questioning whether a person's being Jewish is important enough to warrant mention? Biographies tend to mention that a person is Jewish if evidence strongly supports that.

This PDF contains the newspaper clipping with the headline: "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song". Its first sentence reads: "Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom." I believe that this article repeats the exact same message. We know in no uncertain terms from these sources that Yanofsky is Jewish. There is no ambiguity in the sources about this. And no editor has brought any source that might serve to cast doubt on this.

Therefore I don't think the argument can be made that a person's being Jewish is too insignificant to warrant mention in an article. This is the wording I have attempted to put in the Nikki Yanofsky#Personal life section, only to have my edit reverted:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

The above is straightforward, 100% supported by sources, succinct, and incisive.

"Relevancy" to notability is not necessary for the inclusion of material in the body of an article (as opposed to for instance for the purposes of categorization).

WP:NOTE says "…Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Further down the WP:NOTE page we read: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list.". Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still posting the same self-serving half-quotes, I see. You have already raised this, and it has already been pointed out that WP:NOTE goes on to say "Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". In other words, WP:NOTE isn't the relevant policy. You have clearly lost this argument, and repeating the same point after it has been refuted is nothing more that trolling. If you continue with this, I may consider raising your behaviour at the appropriate forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I don't think WP:WEIGHT would be an applicable policy to whether or not we can make a statement such as "Yanofsky is Jewish…" WP:WEIGHT is a policy which addresses a degree of delving into a side of a subject when two or more points of view are involved. WP:WEIGHT is a subsection of the policy of WP:Neutral point of view. There are no "points of view" involved. What does "neutrality" have to do with this question?

I find at WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." There are no "Neutrality" or "viewpoint" factors involved here at all.

By the way, do you or any other editor have any sources to bring to bear on the subject that is being discussed? I have of course brought two sources, above, both stating unequivocally that the subject of this biography is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue, earlier today I reverted an ip from Los Vegas, Nevada IP:24.234.241.239 (I have seen differing LAS VEGAS dynamic IP address come up in similar content issues but can't currently find the previous) - the edit changed her from being Canadian in the lede to being a Jewish Canadian - as you know we don't add ethnicity to the lede like that.Off2riorob (talk)

Off2--Not in the normal course, I agree. Though that is not a bright-line rule, as it does have exceptions. As to the general rule, I agree with Bus Stop, actually--he makes quite sound distinctions between cats and other items; distinctions that I recall having read time and again over the years, when efforts were made to change wp rules in this regard. I say this at the risk that new user John l will accuse me of whining, but expect my old friend seasoned editor Andy to not level any obscenities at me, even if he is in a grumpy mood. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: A new "Law" (call it "Collect's Law" if you wish)

The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct.

Copyright 2011. Collect (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Vargas

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

Hi, I'm a representative that works for Jessie Vargas and we have noticed that his name has been spelled incorrectly. Can you please correct this as soon as possible? The correct spelling of his name is: Jessie Vargas page url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Vargas. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig2kenneth (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I left a request for comment at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#name claim - Jesse Vargas - Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

C2k, We've no proof that you are, who you claim to be. Anyways, what name are you claiming to be correct? GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Every cited source I've looked at in the article (and I stopped after a few) uses "Jessie", not "Jesse".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is his Twitter account, although I don't know how to verify that it's "official". I have now seen sources that use the spelling "Jesse". I've even seen one source that uses "Jesse" and then points to his Twitter account that says "Jessie".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You get a little tick in a blue circle like this account http://twitter.com/#!/tinselkorey - some people are so clearly who they say they are, or and some have done real world verification, or on wiki verification such as this account did http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy wales in this post to his user page - Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob, the Vargas account doesn't appear to be verified.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and looking at it, nothing there suggest any reliability to support anything here on wikipedia. As a note, I have used unverified twitter accounts to verify content here when the account ownership is clearly indisputable, such as http://twitter.com/#!/peaches_g - Peaches Geldof, she actually posted on twitter in an attempt to correct her wikipedia entry when her name was being falsely altered. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb and Off2. We simply don't have the necessary indicia of reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So that Peaches thing has finally been resolve then? Last time I looked in to it, it seemed possible her long name had been invented on wikipedia and spread from there and there was a denial in some TV show but it was difficult to find any decent denial and unfortunately there were a lot of sources all of which postdated us of course. Nil Einne (talk)

Dave Chappelle

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

On Dave Chappelle's bio page, there is a description of Dave Chappelle having an extra marital affair with the wife of Bill Schnarr, a Comedy Central co-producer on The Chappelle Show. There was no reference to this description and the word marital was misspelled. This seems fishy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmcduffee (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the affair sentences from the article. I've also removed some other very contentious material that is unsourced and violates BLP. There is still a fair amount of garbage in the article, some of which is sourced to Inside the Actors Studio. I've seen this before. Does it satisfy verifiability? It's one thing to say that I've seen a movie or a TV show and use that to describe the plot, for example, but to say that the subject uses drugs because supposedly he said so on an Actors Studio episode - isn't that a bit much? It could only be contested by someone who has access to the same episode.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not for controversial claims that are contested. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with that as a source? What better source than spoken statements from the subject of the article himself? Immediate access to all editors is not a requirement for something to be a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the copyright status, but the interview is widely available on the web, e.g. at this Google video link, and on YouTube. It's also available for $13 from Amazon, and shouldn't be treated any differently than an offline book source. Given this degree of verifiability, I have to agree with Gamaliel. I'll note the video's availability on the article's talk page, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (again)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has had multiple edits by an IP that were reverted. IP then posted the following to the article page;

Recent careful revisions to this page have been removed en bloc by certain paid climate campaigners whose mission is to try to destroy the reputations of Wikipedia biographees who have questioned the official "global warming" theory. These careful revisions, all of which were appropriately sourced, include correct spellings of the subject's name. We must ask that readers should disregard this page as unreliable, and that the Wikipedia authorities should carefully examine the edits made over the last 24 hours and discipline those who have undone the sensible, fair and proportionate revisions that had been made. (posted to the article by 86.146.176.114)

Subsequent discussion of the edits on the article talk page. IP has also posted to Off2riorob's talk page stating that a "paid group of climate campaigners is disrupting pages of people who have questioned the official global warming theory". --Thepm (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the material on User:Off2riorob's talk page (linked above), which strongly implies that the IP is acting on behalf of the subject. This matter needs to be handled sensitively. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord Monckton himself has previously edited this page, pretending to be someone else. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been IP edits from numerous locales, none of which may be Monckton - but we shouldn't be assuming (or projecting on this IP) without anything concrete. The use of "we" is suspicious but far from conclusive. Koncorde (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say those strongly supportive of climate change have sometimes gone too far with BLPs of those who deny or reject or a 'sceptical' of climate change, this was slighly reflected in the arbcom case, but the idea any of them are paid is unsupported to say the least. Incidentally if it's true correction of the name (misspelling added here [1]) was reverted this is somewhat disappointing although I can understand people not wanting to go thru a large number of edits to try and find the good from the bad Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Eric B. Hughes

Eric B. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated notability, NPOV, quotefarm, citation, and resume issues -- appears to be a vanity article. robotrollcall 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion as a Google search disclosed no independent third party sources confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom Corbett

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

A user is repeatedly removing edits/additions related to his energy policy. Sources are reliable and taken from his own energy policy and local newspapers. For some reason they are considering it activism and vandalism, however they haven't appeared to check the sources, are unaware of the problems and think they are natural disasters, which are actually man-made and related directly to the decisions Tom Corbett has made as a living person. The discussion of his energy policy and Marcellus Shale gas drilling is an extremely important and relevant topic related to the man as he was not only funded directly by the gas drilling industry, but is repealing policies and making laws directly related to drilling. He mentions Marcellus more than 20 times in his own energy policy and has repeatedly stated he wants their headquarters in Pennsyvlania, so I do not see how it is not relevant. No point of view was made and only unbiased facts stated from sources. The persons editing appear to be supporters of the man or do not understand the situation.

Any help is welcome. Discussion is at Talk:Tom Corbett#Energy_Policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk • contribs)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP should protect this page of people disrupting official references.While newspapers references are permited for libel,official or academic references are forbidden or disrupted. Akerbeltz and Co have converted this biography in a discussion of 2 papers (out of more than 300 that Arnaiz-Villena has written) and libels assuming true some newspapers accusations (appeared in one month period in Spanish newspapers) that have been demonstrated to be false. They want to remove the document that shows that Arnaiz-Villena was working in 2009 at his Hospital were the accusations were made in 2001.If accusations would have been true,he would have go to jail.You can type in Google bar "Arnaiz-Villena",go to his personal page and also to the National Institutes of Health (USA) authors page and see that all these years Arnaiz-Villena has being producing as head of a scientific team and as a professor,as always was.Iberomesornix (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think by repeating your barely coherent rants you're making a better case? We've been through this before, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive90#Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena and you got nowhere. Might I suggest you please, for the sake of everyone a) learn basic wiki formatting b) understand the importance of references in biographies and c) lay off your incessant tirades and wild accusations? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is tiresome. We have repeatedly asked for the alleged documentation that the changes were dropped, dismissed, or he was found not guilty, but have received nothing. Therefore we go by the sources we do have. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ace Baker

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

This article is horribly sourced, and could be full of libel for all we know, especially at the parts about the 9/11 conspiracies. I thought about immediately putting a speedy on it, but am not yet sure of the process, so wanted some input here before doing so. ~jcm 18:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Complete rubbish BLP - Low notability - educationally worthless - detrimental to the reputation of the project. I made some edits, feel free to speedy. Subject is closely associated to their co writer Clair Marlo which I have also stubbed back. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis

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

User:Soosim insists on adding very serious allegations of anti-semitism to the article on Mikis Theodorakis, and then edit-wars to make sure they stay in [2] [3] [4] [5]. He uses ultra-partisan, right-wing sources, which I find unacceptable. I do not think these sources are sufficient to back such grave allegations. He also behaves aggressively, removing my talkpage posts [6]. Any help in dealing with this would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have good news and bad news. User Soosim was way off base deleting your post on the Talk page, and I will place a note to that effect on his user Talk page. On the other hand, Jerusalem Post is an old line, mainstream and well-respected Israeli newspaper that would be considered a reliable source for almost any assertion. Besides which, Theodorakis is so overt about his dislike of Jews it is not hard to find a non-Israeli source, such as The Guardian ("this small people is at the root of evil"). Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I re-inserted the material in the article, sourced to the Guardian and Jerusalem Post,and also included Theodorakis' denial from his web site. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked and found a citation in the Los Angeles Times:

• "We're in danger!" warned renowned composer Mikis Theodorakis, who in the course of a television interview openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite. "Zionism and it leaders are here, meeting in our country!" "This is no laughing matter," he railed, berating Zionism and its "control over America and the banking system that Greece is now a victim of."
  • "Anti-Semitism flares anew in Greece; Strong sentiments have been revived amid the angst and anger of the economic crisis." Anthee Carassava. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 21, 2011. pg. A.3

I agree that the Jerusalem Post is also a reliable source and not a partisan rag.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here] is a thread from the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard] showing consensus that Jerusalem Post fact reporting is reliable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An unfortunate situation, since I love the theme from Zorba, but Theodorakis seems to cross the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, even in his own recent declaration against anti-Semitism where he claims that "Zionists" control 99% of the world music industry. Jonathanwallace's edits look good, but they don't deal with the comments Theodorakis made this year, only those from 2003. Should some mention of the recent comments also go in?Griswaldo (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Although, as far as I can tell Theodorakis did not exactly "openly concede that he was an anti-Semite," despite making what are quite clearly anti-Semitic remarks. Indeed he maintains that he is not an anti-Semite. My point is that I think this should be covered, but we should not repeat the claim that he "openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite" without reliable sourcing that actually quotes him saying it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the whole thing started up again in 2011. In fact, I inadvertently mixed the two events together, referencing the Wiesenthal Center's 2011 allegation together with the composer's 2003 comments. A sentence or two needs to be added clarifying this. I agree we shouldn't say he admits to anti-semitism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry about the deletion. don't know how it happened. never have done anything like it before in more than 4 years as an editor. will try to fix it. Soosim (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth years?!?

I would like to ask for an investigation of the sources that have cited or written the possibly correct or in some cases possibly incorrect DOB of some people (Such as Tom Kane, Jason Statham, Robert Pattinson, Kath Soucie and Martin Landau). Some people have tried to cite multiple sources, but it is quite possible that through a third party source unreliable info to have been spread.................or in this case someone wrote the first year that came to his mind in someone Wikipedia page and from then on every other website start writing this.79.124.57.4 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The notion that information printed in one (ostensibly) reliable source is actually false would, of course, require a competing reliable source. For example, if the New York Times, usually considered a halfway decent paper, saif that John Doe was born on January 10, 1951; and you claim that the New York Times was basing its information on a faulty source, you'd better have something at least as good as the New York Times which says so, or else its just your word, as an anyonymous internet denizen, against the reputation of the New York Times... We'd need more than that. --Jayron32 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC):

All said is that it is strange to say that John Doe finished High School in 1943 and that he was born 1951 or the other way around and it's impossible to imply that this person is around 40 years of ag when in reality he is more close to 60 years of age. PLEASE investigate who wrote these DOBs, what source did they use and are they true or...........that is if that is not a problem79.124.57.4 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We aim at verifiablity not WP:TRUTH, with the caveats that we aim to write conservatively about living persons (see WP:BLP) and that we aim to get the articles right, so any obvious errors like the above would need to be fixed. You are just as well able as us to "investigate who wrote these DOBs" - see Help:Page history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He's got a point about Martin Landau. The birthdate is sourced to space1999.net and veromi.net. Is this acceptable for a BLP? Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure its acceptable for any article... Bad sources are bad sources, and I wouldn't count either of those as bearing the hallmarks of reliability... --Jayron32 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

James Suckling

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

There is repeated mention that "In 1992 Suckling suggested to Wine Spectator publisher Marvin R. Shanken to create Cigar Aficionado, a magazine dedicated to Cuban culture, specifically Cuban cigars." This statement is incorrect and has been acknowledged by Suckling himself as incorrect, yet is continually inserted. Additionally, no copies of the cited material can be found anywhere to verify the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnagara (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting/John_Derbyshire

The subject user page is an old version of a bio that has been through extensive cleanup and edits. I found it accidentially via normal google search. The old version contains extensive contentious material that has been handled in the mainspace article. I'm not sure how to handle this but I recommend deletion.Jarhed (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up, I have nuked it. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work, thank you.Jarhed (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Barry Wellman

• Barry Wellman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has edited this article heavily - Bellagio99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and the article reads as a resume. Most of the sources are his own papers; the career progression reads as WP:OR from beginning to end. Please review this article and make it less of an advertisement. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• If the editor is Dr. Wellman himself, he might be advised of concerns under WP:AUTOBIO. However, the article is carefully written and avoids WP:PEACOCK words, and a brief Google search confirms notability, as he has been extensively quoted and covered in media articles such as this one. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • But the problems Guy describes are real, and the article should not remain as it is. It would be a shame to hack it down, but that might be the only option unless someone has the time for a more nuanced approach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Karygiannis

• Jim Karygiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent edits to this article [7] are concerning - could someone please review them? Prioryman (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I removed it . Undue weight to minor issues creating attack content and other such problems such as - this -- Karygiannis spewed out anti-Macedonian hate at a lecture entitled "Insight to Hellenism" at the University of Toronto. While praising the lecture, which glorified Greece's policy of denying the existence and persecution of its large Macedonian minority and which defended Greece's bombing of Macedonian civilians during Greece's Civil War, Karygiannis once again referred to Macedonians as "Skopjans". This is a term used by Greece to negate the ethnic identity of Macedonians and evokes Greeces horrific campaigns, past and present, at ethnically cleansing or forcibly assimilating its large Macedonian minority. As a result, Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI) calls on Canadian politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to demand Karygiannis' immediate resignation -- was cut and copied from this primary opinionated location(content posted from the citation for discussion only and not reprinting) - http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2011/march08_e.asp - Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Gary E. Johnson

• Gary E. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article does not appear to have a neutral tone and is more of a puff piece for Johnson's announced political run.

Missing: 1. Democratic Viewpoint 2. Viewpoint of other groups, especially political analysts who are nonpartisan. 3. His critics 4. Affects of his decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.92.145 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It does read like a puff piece. I chopped out some of the worst bits, which were basically just lists of positive press quotes and campaign stops. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruiser Brody

The article is currently linked to on the mainpage as part of a DYK for another article. That makes these concerns slightly more time-sensitive: The section on his murder Bruiser_Brody#Death contains a large amount of material which may or may not be sourced well (some of the books may be ok, but at least one of the sources looks to be a personal website). A lot of the material concerning his death trial looks potentially bad such as the claims that Atlas lied. I don't have time to look at this right now (and I know too little about this subject to even judge what is or is not a reliable source about professional wrestling). I suspect that the solution may be just to prune away most of the content. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed of all contentious weakly cited content. I left a note on the talkpage linking to this thread and requesting discussion here if there is objection to the removal.Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

False, abusive, defamatory vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&action=historysubmit&diff=425338690&oldid=401364995

Why do you allow false, abusive and defamatory vandalism of this page?

Can you please lock it or delete it? I don't believe any value is served by allowing Wikipedia to be used as an assault tool.

At the least please remove the offensive material posted by the anonymous troll and ban the IP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.241.95 (talk • contribs)

• - The uncited controversial looking content has been removed. Sections of the community support allowing such additions to be made and they sometimes revert them if they see them they sometimes don't - the anonymous IP address gets to vandalize four articles before we restrict their editing privileges and if I request protection of the BLP they will say that the biography has not been vandalized enough yet. If you care about defamation being inserted to that article I suggest the best solution you have is to watch it yourself. If the subject is unhappy with the situation as he is of limited note I suggest a course of action is to contact the wikipedia foundation and complain there and request removal of the biography from the project. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation here for contact details - Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

• Greg Mortenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea and director of the Central Asia Institute, was the subject of recent exposés by 60 Minutes and author Jon Krakauer which allege that Mortenson has not been truthful about his past and that he misspends charitable donations. As Mortenson has been a highly respected humanitarian, the charges have been a shock to many. Mortenson has issued some statements in reply, but also underwent heart surgery this week so he has not given a full accounting. In any case, more eyes watching the article would help keep it balanced during this transitional period.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Rauf Omar Mohammed Abu Al Qusin

• Abdul Rauf Omar Mohammed Abu Al Qusin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone explain to me the value of this image?

I think it shows the individual in a disparaging light and it should be removed. What do you think? IQinn (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like my high school yearbook picture. I.E. it has no value. Remove/delete. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

high school yearbook picture? What, the school for the blind? Seriously, it would be better to have a crayon drawing, that photo adds less than nothing, imho. Is it trying to make a point or something? Anyways, I removed it. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment - This whole sectors notability is exaggerated through primary citations and through wikipedia en being the primary vehicle reporting this - almost all of which has been created by a single account - User:Geo Swan - many of the articles the account has created are never even viewed - the subjects are so not-notable, wikipedia and its readers does not benefit at all from hosting huge sections of articles written by a single account, see here - in this sector over 2000 articles created by this single account (Geo Swan) - Most of them should be deleted and en wikipedia and its readers would lose nothing, in fact imo they would gain by not having to bump into such low notability primary sources only hosted here content. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit, and Wikipedia is not paper. You may dislike our project's foundational principles, but that's hardly a reason to disparage a productive contributor. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not disparaging to state my opinion of that accounts contributions. Not talking about it won't make the facts go away. Its quite well known in such contentious contribution sectors that when they are dominated and massively expanded in such a way by a single account it creates multiple issues, notability is one in this sector, multiple primary reports and NPOV is another - the wikipedia wants articles and sectors created by and read by as wide a user base as possible as most of the articles created by this account are basically not notable and as such are being created and primarily hosted here here - there are clear issues with such massive sector creation by a single account. The other side of the position which I do not support at all and I don't see any support for in en wikipedia guidelines and the foundations educational aims and ambitions - is thank you very much for massively expanding this low notability sector, the two thousand articles although not often read and of low notability, perhaps they are a bit primarily cited to comply with our policies and guidelines but no one else has them, so if anyone wants to read such content at least they will be able to at en wikipedia and we are happy to host them here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't appeal to you personally doesn't it's not useful to others.

I once saw a conference about Guantanamo on C-SPAN where Wikipedia was called an excellent resource. That's no doubt due in large part to Geo Swan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

this worthless picture

I don't have any interest in if its appealing to me or not. Its about wikipedia policy and guidelines not having been applied correctly result ing in this massive not notable section - the fact that you say user Geo Swan was mentioned and wikipedia was noted as a fantastic resource for this low notability primary reported content is a reflection and verification of my complaints about this user and this content. Such hosting of low notability primary sources contentious content (much of which is about living people) is not a part of the remit of the wikipedia foundations project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say they mentioned Geo Swan by name. I'm just crediting him with setting it up.

I'm not sure what you're saying is contentious here. I've disagreed with many of Geo Swan's personal opinions on Guantanamo itself, but I recognize the value in these articles, and they did, too.

As for the issue of primary sources, they tend to be government sources, and they're all properly attributed as such. It's not like a bunch of anonymous charges.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep until we get a better picture. The image is poor quality but it's not offensive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue is so reflective of the whole low notability rubbish sector that revolves around User:Geo Swan's contributions. - User:Kendrick7 replaced this worthless picture - with the edit summary of - "wikipedia is not paper" - what nonsense - its a worthless picture in a worthless article - Wikipedia is being used as a publisher and a soapbox in this sector - delete delete delete. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear 3:0 consensus at the BLP noticeboard by all uninvolved editors Quinn1, Threeafterthree, Off2riorob to delete this image (no i am not counting Randy2063, Kendrick7 who are highly involved and known for jumping in to defend Geo Swan and Geo Swan's POV) and who re-added the image with a "nonsens" (my words) edit summary. Why is this image still there? IQinn (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, LOL @ "highly involved", considering I hardly even edit anymore, prior to last week I doubt I made 100 edits all year. But if you want me around that much, it can be done ;) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note - if there is repeated meatpuppetry and or blind support of Geo Swan's contributions by named accounts that should be chronicled and reported as and when relevant. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm no one's sock. IQinn is simply being IQinn.

As I said, Geo Swan and I disagree on a lot of things, and perhaps Guantanamo most of all. But I personally believe this stuff is worth keeping.

A blurry photo disparages no one but the photographer.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello - that picture is total valueless rubbish - anyone supporting it has got issues. If I was blind I would appreciate seeing it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the image is not a BLP violation unless a low-quality image is taken when we have a better one available.

I'm not saying it's a good picture. If someone creates an article with a lineup of pictures, I think they'd use it rather than have a blank spot by his name. If that's all we have then that's all we have. I'm surprised it bothers anyone.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes The individual is presented in a disparaging light. "That picture is total valueless rubbish" (get glasses). IQinn (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This picture is laughable, and has been harvested from a primary PDF thumbnail file and is a non free file - The big issue here that I have seen is that in this sector over 2000 articles created have been created by this single account (Geo Swan) - Most of them should be deleted and en wikipedia and its readers would lose nothing of educational value. Look at what this User:Geo Swan account is producing multiple BLP articles with low notability, such as this Pir Sayed Ishaq Gailani - Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a meat-puppet either, but I remind you of yet another principle of the project -- which I suppose, like WP:PAPER, you are free to mock also -- to always assume good faith. As such, I'll always support another editor's contributions to the project (as opposed to deletions there from). -- Kendrick7^talk 02:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see how this image "presents the individual in a disparaging light". Obviously it is unsatisfactory, but it is not worthless — it lets us see dark hair, mustache — gives us a sense of the ethnicity. And who knows what tricks of enhancement could be done on it? Don't treat an editor like he's a pariah because he wanted to cover in detail what some would like to keep secret. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I also wish we had a better image, Rob, but I disagree that this one is worthless. Even as poor as it is, I feel it helps personalize the accompanying text ... which is, after all, the only reason we use pictures of BLP subjects at all. Re your larger concerns about Geo Swan's contributions, this doesn't seem to me like the right venue to make those arguments. AN/I or AfD would seem more apt, for those purposes, to me. And the accusations of "meatpuppetry"? I understand that feelings can run high about issues one cares about, but if you want to make so serious a charge, I think it'd be better, also, to take that to AN/I than to just throw it out in passing, here. Doing so in this context seems needlessly provocative to me, especially if you don't intend to make a formal accusation of the same, in the appropriate context.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it relevant that the "source" is a 404 not found page on an activist website that doesn't strike me as a reliable source. So it may be that we shouldn't even reach the deep philosophical issues here: there seems to be no evidence that the photo is actually genuine. Without better sourcing, it should be deleted on those grounds alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What reliable source would provide such a crap image and say here is a photo of joe blow? The NYTs? Washington Post? No serious source would do that because they would be a laughing stock. And folks wonder why when Wikipedia is mentioned in academic circles people just laugh. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Wales, we don't normally delete info from the project simply because a link breaks. I mean, we could be a victim of some elaborate conspiracy to make up a bad picture of this gentleman, but it just seems highly unlikely. I'd rather err on the side of improving the project until better info comes to light. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

At least you admitt you are in error. I guess that is a small step in the right direction. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are folks either smoking crack or have some point to make to include that worthless piece of crap image. Its offensive to the project and people who contribute here, not to the subject of the article. The idea above that you can make out facial hair so you can tell his ethnicity has to t\be one of the more stupid things I have read here ever. Again, please come clean with what the real motivation for including a totally worthless image that adds less than zero to the project and whos inclusion makes all of us look like idiots. This is agenda pushing at its best. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)ps, also, the idea I want to keep this out in order to keep some secret is equally offensive and moronic. Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that the bad faith revision continues. Too bad. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3A3, it was certainly improper to cast aspersions on your motives, as was done above, but returning the favor is no more appropriate. When you find yourself using language and characterizations like the ones you've allowed yourself above it's an indication that you're too emotionally involved for the time being to contribute effectively. I understand that you care a lot about this, but these comments indicate to me that you've let that too greatly influence your perspective. This is not so crucially important an issue that it should prompt you to insult your fellow editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, I actually don't really give a crap about some crap image or the article in question. That is why I am going to try not to get sucked into some dumb edit war over this. I think I am now suffieciently on record as to my opinion about the image in question and the editor(s) involved. The folks who actually do give a crap and do have an agenda to promote, however, will continue as they always do. Its Wikipedia's greatest fault. Wikipedia, however, is like how Bill Graham described my favorite band "they might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do"....also, if I say something is stupid or whatever, just calling like I see it...cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The file fails also 1) WP:NFC#UULP. I added the "di-disputed" template to the file but Kendrick7 as involved editor who has repeatedly reverted other users on the article page deleted the template. "As per 1) WP:NFC#UULP The use of copyrighted images of people still alive is unacceptable as a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What's wrong with him? He can not simply delete the template. IQinn (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't care who it is a picture of because you can't tell who it is a picture of! I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_24#File:Guantanamo_captive_Abu_Abdul_Rauf_Zalita.jpg Gamaliel (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wali Razaqi

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

This page seems to be edited heavily and often, perhaps by Mr. Razaqi himself, in the interest of self promotion. It does not adhere to the protocol for biographies of living persons. Most notably, it seems that while there are a few sources, they are generally not of a high quality secondary nature as is warranted by wikipedia. Also, this article is extensive for someone relatively unknown, which returns the issue with this page to the lack of high quality secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.111 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This was a fairly small article which you trimmed too heavily and left in unsourced personal details. I've done some fixing up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lenny Schafer

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

The "Lenny Schafer" biographical entry in Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Schafer is a hostile listing posted by political adversaries. As such I ask that it be eliminated. The very first sentence states in part that I have "generated controversy from the autism rights movement.[1]" This is a slur against me personally. My contribution to the autism movement, which spans over 15 years, is not defined by such claimed controversy. In addition, the "autism rights movement" as referenced is a small fringe political group that has little standing with the rest of the autism community at large. Thus, the so-called controversy exits only in the minds of a very small group of political adversaries. This attempt to frame me foremost in the context of "controversy" is a pejorative distortion and intended to defame me and to publicly diminish my contributions as an autism advocate. It is my understanding that Wiki is not to be used for political gamesmanship. This entry is a personal attack against me and as such I ask that it be removed. Please let me know how I can help make this change. If it is not the policy to remove entire listings, then I would ask that references made to "controversy from the autism rights movement.[1]" and to the self-described "Autism Rights Movement" section be deleted. Lenny Schafer. Schafer Autism Report(Contact information redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schaferatsprynet (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done as you asked. There was no explicit mention of you generating controversy in the source and the "Autism Rights Movement" section, based on one email, seemed to have undue weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Salamunovich

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

There needs to be some kind of definitive resolution to this dispute regarding the quote in the December 14, 1994 article written by Timothy Mangan in the Los Angeles Times ("The Panache is Back : Paul Salamunovich has restored the L.A. Master Chorale's to its former glory . . ." ) which states clearly:

"When I took over the Chorale," Salamunovich says, "the first thing Wagner told me was, 'Paul, get rid of half the sopranos and hire basses'--to get back to the old sound."

This line has repeatedly been deleted, most recently on 15:05, 16 April 2011, by user 76.91.58.230 who states: "This statement is inaccurate as Salamunovich neither heard nor entertained such an order from Wagner. I am Paul Salamunovich's son and he's has directly refuted this information to me."

While I have no reason to doubt user 76.91.58.230 is in fact the younger Mr. Salamunovich, and also that both he and his father disagree with the quote, the facts remain that:

• 1) The quote mentioned above is a valid quote from an established source. While Wikipedia rules on Biographies of Living Persons states that, "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable," this is clearly not the case in this instance.
• 2) The repeated deletion of the quote and the stated reasons for this deletion seems to violate all three Wikipedia core content policies, specifically:
  • Neutral point of view
  • Verifiability
  • No original research

I hold no ill-will towards either the older or younger Mr. Salamunovich, and the fact that I was the one to create his Wikipedia page back in 2008 should indicate that I hold the esteemed chorale director in very high regards; however, I strongly believe the article should reflect the existing unbiased third-party record accurately. If either older or younger Mr. Salamunovich has a dispute on the accuracy of the quote or does not remember this quote, it seems that they should take it up with the Los Angeles Times and not with Wikipedia.

I invite others to share their opinion on this. Westofpch (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The press is hardly full of angels, but I doubt the Los Angeles Times would entirely make up this quote. What is to be gained? Are they trying to bring reality show drama to the world of master chorales?

I think if Mr. Salamunovich wants to address this quote with us and not with the Los Angeles Times, then we need some means to verify that it is in fact him who disputes it and not some random person on the internet. I suggest he contact the Wikimedia foundation. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Janil Puthucheary

• Janil Puthucheary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The sources for this article are biased.

"The online citizen" is notorious for selective quoting.

The quote was taken out of context. The original quote was to demonstrate that he had served the nation in a professional capacity rather than offer it as an alternative to national service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj100rj100 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done some re-phrasing and removed some unsourced information, and I'm also going to ask for an extra opinion, but comments and review from others are very welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Online Citizen is probably heavily biased against the ruling PAP, although they would claim it's to counter the pro-PAP bias in the national Straits Times. Given the candidate is running for the PAP, this is probably an inappropriate source and it might be a good idea to copy this to WP:RSN for further input. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yevgene Kaspersky

Resolved

 – kidnappers arrested, son freed, cited to Reuters

• Yevgeny Kaspersky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we say about the kidnapping of his son? Details are murky and pure speculative. Even Sophos labs has pulled their article. Maybe we should do the same? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I boldly deleted the information on the grounds that this is a developing situation less than two days old; the facts are very uncertain and the sources quoted such as BBC are all echoing Russian websites of uncertain reliability; the family has asked for privacy; and we are not a newspaper. Newspapers and other websites may choose to report on a kidnapping in progress in which the kidnappers demanded secrecy, but there is no reason we have to cover it within a couple days of its occurrence while its still playing out and no-one knows for sure what is happening. The content might be re-added to the article when the situation stabilizes and there is a little more clarity in reliable sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• -update - it appears resolved happily - the son is released and the article now has a simple comment about the issue cited to reuters. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jari Tolsa

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

Neutral point of view and verifiability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.148 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's mainly unsourced and unencyclopedic. It's a stub that's been around since 2007. It didn't have much in it, but now it has even less because I removed the folksy, unsourced material. I've also tagged it as requiring sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Michal Neuvirth

• Michal Neuvirth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for Michal Neuvirth needs to be changed to correct information instead of being defamed. People are changing the information so that he is made into a cat. He is not a cat. He is a hockey player. They are abusing the editing abilities of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.128.12 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How crazy. I've semi-protected the article for a week. Gamaliel (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Film : The prodigal Son.

Resolved

 – removed internal

The Prodigal Son (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Jamaica bassist, phil chen, has nothing to do with the film music of the HK film ; The prodigal Son by Sammy Hung. The actual composer for this film was another phil Chen who had composed many film music in Hong Kong till 1995. Please verify with Berklee college of Music ; phil chen of class 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daitoto (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct - I have removed the internal link. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rick Hill

Resolved

 – Page protected, editors warned, some disputed material deleted due to poor sourcing, some restored due to good sourcing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• One anonymous user is contributing to the problems: 174.44.192.32 (talk · contribs).
• Two registered users are creating persistent problems: Mark834 (talk · contribs) and Constantina13 (talk · contribs).
• They persist in posting the same material, despite my several corrections and warnings, to the page for Rick Hill. Mr. Hill is a former Congressman and current candidate for governor in Montana. The problematic postings by these three users are, in my opinion, intended as negative political commentary against Mr. Hill.
• They have repeatedly added a paragraph with two quotations attributed to Mr. Hill with a citation to a New York Times article. I could find no evidence that Mr. Hill made these quotations, nor are the quotations contained in the cited article. Furthermore, the paragraph is speculative in nature and not appropriate for an entry.
• They have repeatedly have changed material to imply that Mr. Hill cheated on his current wife of 28 years, Betti. That accusation is an outright lie. The citations provided by the three offenders refer to Mr. Hill's divorce from his prior wife in 1976.
• They have repeatedly two paragraphs that refer to the Billings Gazette newspaper as a source, and that detail specifics of Mr. Hill's 1976 divorce. However, the citations provided do not link to that newspaper. Furthermore the two paragraphs are speculative, politically charged, and meant to embarrass Mr. Hill, not to inform readers.
• The current page references Mr. Hill's 1976 divorce and maintains two of the citations other uses have posted that give additional info on the divorce. It is not appropriate for details of Mr. Hill's divorce to dominate the content on this page, particularly in light of his many accomplishments in public and private life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdenowh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While there may be issues with balance, some of what you say is not painting the whole picture. The NY Times cite can be used and the Gazette links are to scans of the articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your talkpage posts with four tildes. I deleted the material because the scribd.com source is not reliable especially for controversial material in the biography of a living person. These were apparent, not necessarily true, copies of old newspaper articles in a content aggregator, and very possibly copyright violations. See WP:BLPREMOVE for an explanation of the policy under which we remove poorly-sourced contentious material. See WP:WELLKNOWN for an example detailing the circumstances under which we would report the infidelity of a public figure in an article: "He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." The material I deleted from this bio doesn't yet live up to that standard, though it might if better sources are found. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NeilN: I didn't see the NY Times source you mentioned, which is not in the current state of the article. My comments on sourcing apply only to the scribd links. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've restored the NYT-cited material and issued a number of warnings. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba#Criticism and controversy

I need some help with this section... (the article is on the front page today so response is relatively urgent). We currently have some level of detail about sexual allegations (the usual stuff for spiritual leaders like this) and I am divided on what is best to do with it. We probably need to deal with some aspects, but I can't decide exactly how to present it. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Difficult mission - Could use a little rewrite but there are plenty of rebuttals and it seemed that the more mud was thrown at him the more popular he got so I don't think he would have minded. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

Jack Sarfatti - article currently a battleground between IPs. Subject of article complaining to me. The article is a very longterm problem article, and I'd love it if we could get a lot of high quality eyes on the situation quickly, make some radical cuts to the article if necessary, then semi-protect it and be extremely firm about not letting this happen again. My own view is that it should be deleted as an unmaintainable biography on a not-very-notable subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the more important issue of notability, the central problem with the article is that almost all of the references no longer exist online. Thus, to verify them, I'd have to find the original newspaper at a library. I think the sources are real because I can find abstracts of them (I ain't paying to see the whole thing), but I can't verify the actual assertions. Nonetheless, I've done some cosmetic clean-up of the article and removal of trivia (although the yardstick for trivia in this kind of an article is not obvious). Not sure about the IP battle issue. It looks like some IPs have done some heavy editing of the article, but edit wars aren't apparent to me at first glance. Anyway, at the moment, the article doesn't have any real BLP issues, i.e., defamation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it was likely the subject of the article who had the first paragraph read the way that it did. I haven't had time (parents visiting this weekend) to really dig in and figure out what the current upset on the part of the subject is about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• note - I requested indefinite semi protection here - seems like there has been a long term dispute with the subject over his Bio. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• update -  Done - Six months semi protected by User:Dabomb87 - going forward this will help stabilize the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very good thing, and I think we should focus attention if we can on make sure that every statement in this biography is well-sourced. This is not a breaking news event, nothing much really changes, we ought to be able to get to a basically decent version of the article and be very firm with people who try to make a mess of it in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Bbb23 - the cited newspaper sources are all available through Proquest, which is free for many people in the U.S. through their libraries.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Will, but not all of the cited sources are on Proquest - for example, the San Jose Mercury News article. Still, it's a big help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The San Jose Mercury article is available (two articles) in the archives but they are behind a paywall. See here - Published on August 7 and August 6, 2000, San Jose Mercury NewsOff2riorob (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the full text of these articles now via the Newsbank database. If anyone needs anything from these articles, please contact me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which editor is Sarfatti?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure if it was confirmed or only suspected but there was some on wiki and off wiki disruption (emails and outing) a few years ago and this account was indef/banned - User:JackSarfatti - all better left in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. Over five years ago, hardly a justification for 6 months of semi-protection. Mind you, I don't object to the protection, but that's only because I'm not a big believer in IP editing as a matter of policy. However, in terms of consistency with other semi-protected articles, it seems like overkill.

I think we should really address the notability issue Wales raises. The notability tag has been in place since July 2010. We ought to determine whether Sarfatti is sufficiently notable, in which case we should remove the tag, or whether he's not, in which case the article should be nominated for deletion. I think it's a hard call myself. Sarfatti has certainly received coverage in reliable sources, but I'm not sure it's the kind of coverage needed to make him notable. Much of it is localized to the Bay Area, and the rest of it, frankly, is because his ideas are so fringe, yet because of his academic credentials, he's able to participate in more mainstream debates.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Sarfatti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - last afd from 2005. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first AFD from that time make interesting reading. I have a degree of support for Jimmys position that he is a low notability subject and his article is of little educational benefit to readers and has been nothing but trouble and that the project and the readers would lose little to nothing if we deleted it, but I have a feeling such a deletion rationale would struggle to reach consensus, so I support your work to edit uncited and not noteworthy content and improve the citations.Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, again, thanks for the pointer to the previous afd (it is an interesting read) - I should really get in the habit of looking these things up, but it still doesn't occur to me automatically yet. I agree with you, though - there would probably be no consensus. Oh, well, we'll just pare it down to sourced, relevant information and let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Micheletti

Resolved

 – reverted to stable version. Rd232 ^talk 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

This entry is extremely biased. It makes no mention of Micheletti's assumption of power as a coup, instead referring to it as a constitutional succession. The entire international community (OAS, UN, EU, US, etc.) rejected this interpretation ("constitutional succession") of events, and the subsequent President of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo, also ultimately acknowledged as much (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-altschuler/lobo-reverses-stance-on-h_b_594717.html). I do not have time to list all the sources for this, but suffice it to say that even the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledged that what had happened was a coup: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html

As it stands, this entry is hugely problematic and requires substantial revision to provide an accurate assessment of the events of June 28, 2009 and the aftermath of Honduras's coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielaltschuler (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe Loncke

Louis-Philippe Loncke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This brand new article needs an experienced eye over it. I may be wrong, but it has the appearance of a PR "puff" piece. The new editor has added the subject of this page to about half a dozen WP pages, only editing on this subject.Nickm57 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mauricio Macri

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

Someone is constantly trying to add a story to the article Mauricio Macri (mayor of Buenos Aires) about how his shop was closed and what an abuse it was. No media has reported any of that, of course: this is just the rants of a common shop owner, whose shop has failed to follow some regulation, it was closed as a result, and uses Wikipedia as a platform to tell the world that there is a conspiracy against him. Mauricio Macri will run for either the presidency of Argentina or reelection as mayor; in any case, it's an article that may attract these kind of biased edits from opposers.

The user included this info from several IPs, so the article was semiprotected. Now he has employed a dormant account, Davidglen77, to evade the semiprotection. Cambalachero (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The challenged content is not currently in the article, but it has a number of other apparent neutrality and sourcing problems. I reverted an unsourced assertion about Buenos Aires' crime rate, but the article badly needs attention from Spanish speaking editors as some of the remaining material sourced to Spanish language media seems to need verification (is he really being tried or just sued in a spying scandal? Did he really break a piece of modern art using a reporter's head? And what is meant by the statement that the artwork is believed to "detect corruption"?) Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell Boggs

is there evidence elsewhere he is Wade Boggs' son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.102.186 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Barton

Hello, I am a colleague of Dominic Barton's at McKinsey. It has come to my attention that his Wikipedia biographical entry describes Mr. Barton as having been mentored by Anil Kumar. This is false, and an seems posted in an effort to defame Mr. Barton given Mr. Kumar's recent legal troubles. Moreover, the claim does not meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. While appearing to be sourced to an article in Canadian Business Online, there is no mention of any such relationship in that piece and request that the following language be removed to reflect that. Thank you.

During that time Barton was mentored by Anil Kumar, a longtime senior McKinsey partner and earlier pioneer in McKinsey Asia, later caught up in the Galleon Group scandal.[3]

    ^ a b Joanna Pachner. "[8]". Canadianbusiness.com. Retrieved 2011-03-30