Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:42, 8 June 2012

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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.

Howard Fineman

Hello, there are two minor errors that warrant correction in the Howard Fineman biographical article. I spotted these errors because I work with Howard Fineman. Because my employment relationship presents a WP:COI, I was wondering if someone here on the BLP/N would be able to review and make these two corrections:

1. Update the first sentence of the intro paragraph to read as: "Howard Fineman is an American journalist who is editorial director of the AOL Huffington Post Media Group.(citing this source)" Reasoning: The current version is simply outdated, as it uses a prior title of "senior politics editor." The subject of this article is currently "editorial director" as shown here.

2. In paragraph two of the Education and early career section, remove the phrase "a practicing Jew" due to inaccuracy and unverifiability. Reasoning: The Wikipedian who wrote this sentence seems to have made an honest mistake in describing the subject as "a practicing Jew," as this is not correct (nor is it verifiable in reliable sources). They seem to have misread the source cited, jweekly.com, which states that "He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University"; however the source never actually describes Fineman as "a practicing Jew."

Thanks for your help. If any further sources are needed to justify the changes suggested above, please let me know and I'd be happy to provide those. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that an editor from the WP:HELP IRC live chat was able to make these two changes, so this request has been handled. If anyone has additional feedback on these changes, though, I am more than open to it. Thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—While it is true that the source you cite above would not seem to support a term such as "practicing Jew", it would be a source that would support that Howard Fineman is Jewish. We find at that source:

"But Yiddishkeit and lively discussions at the dinner table ruled. 'There's a direct line from my table to 'Hardball,' Fineman notes. 'My dad was like Chris Matthews because he would both ask and answer his own questions."

"His parents, both teachers, also taught Sunday school at the local synagogue where Fineman was bar mitzvahed. He attended a predominantly Jewish high school before moving on to Colgate University.

"While there, he earned a postgraduate fellowship, for which he undertook what he calls his 'kosher roots project. I bought a VW bus and went to Jewish places in the Old Country, then to Israel for three months. I recapitulated Jewish history.'"

"Fineman says America has proven a uniquely hospitable home for Jews because of the nature of its founding."

"'That, plus the innate philo-Semitism of the founders, who analogized their situation to the Jews of the Old Testament, makes the country unique.'"

I would suggest that we have support in the above source for our article to be saying that Howard Fineman is Jewish. I am saying that this edit has removed too much material insofar as it has also removed that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that Fineman is Jewish while leaving out the term "practicing" which may not be supportable by that source. I have done that in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into this so thoroughly. I submit that we take a closer look at the phrase "who is Jewish."

While WP:BLP does not cover this type of content directly, WP:BLPCAT states that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Put more briefly, religious inclusion requires both (a) self-identification, and (b) relevance (with RS) to notability.

The spirit of WP:BLP would also suggest that a living person ought to have a right to self-identify as part of a religious group. While the subject of this article attended a predominantly Jewish high school and was bar mitzvahed several decades ago, the subject has not self-identified as being Jewish, and his religion is not related to his notability.

Based on these factors, it does not seem to be fitting to speculate that the subject of this article "is Jewish." Bus stop, what are your thoughts on this? Could a few others could weigh in as well, in order to help establish consensus? Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—do you mean to say that despite the assertion supported by a reliable source that Howard Fineman was bar mitzvahed we still may not have adequate justification for saying in our article that Fineman is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the prompt response--much appreciated. Yes, that is my suggestion. As I mentioned above, I happen to work with Howard Fineman--which is why I've posed this question for the community to decide on (as I'm cognizant of WP:OWN and WP:COI, and therefore will only make grammatical/minor direct edits myself). Howard asked why the article describes him as being Jewish, given the fact that his religion is not related to his notability, and as an adult he has not self-identified as being Jewish.

I wouldn't generally suggest removing material in an article (such as controversies) simply because a subject asked to have it removed; however regarding the designation of a subject's religious beliefs, WP:BLP asks Wikipedians to exercise extra care--and thus, in the interest of information accuracy, if a living person indicates that they prefer not to be classified under a specific religion, I feel it is only appropriate to respect their desire given the personal, contentious and, for some, non-static nature of religious beliefs.

Would it be helpful if I asked Mr. Fineman to submit an OTRS ticket or something of that nature to help provide clarification? I wouldn't think that would be necessary, but if it would be of help, I'd be happy to look into doing so. Thanks to Bus stop and others for discussing this so constructively. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—the article supporting that Howard Fineman is Jewish is published in April 2008. Can you please tell me what has transpired in the intervening 4 years to cause us to reassess the applicability of this attribute vis-a-vis Howard Fineman? If I am asking something improper I hope other, more knowledgeable editors will jump in and shed the light of some policy considerations on this situation. I am in personally uncharted territory as a Wikipedian here, and I don't want to make any faux pas or worse in my line of questioning. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past four years, the WP:BLP standards regarding categorization have been materially changed, as I am sure you recall through discussions on this very board in which you have participated. A clear reading of the article you give allows the assertion that he was "bar mitzvahed" but not that he self-identifies (current tense) as Jewish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect—I understand your concern with verification. While I did not add the source to the article, I feel it adequately supports that Howard Fineman is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I removed the category "Jewish American writers", in case you missed my edit on that BLP. I also made the edit wherein you labelled him as Jewish to "raised in a Jewish family" as being both accurate and supportable by the source. Cheers. (this post was written while B.S. removed his comments about "categories" being not an issue here) Collect (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is helpful that several are weighing in, as this will help in establishing consensus on what is, naturally, a complex topic. "Raised in a Jewish family" seems accurate. The only question that remains is, doesn't this sentence sound a bit odd with the religious background inserted into it? It now reads:

"Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics..."

His first journalism work involved writing for this regional newspaper about state politics and the environment, but neither these subjects, nor the paper itself or his journalism career are tied to the religion of his parents.

For instance, the article about Mel Gibson mentions his religious upbringing because it is directly related to his notability (he directed a prominent film on a religious subject, Passion of the Christ). However, the article about Josh Weinstein does not mention his religious upbringing because that is not directly tied to his notability (he was a writer for The Simpsons). It would be odd to read a sentence such as 'Weinstein, who was raised in a _______ family, began writing for The Simpsons in...'

Since Howard Fineman is notable as a political journalist and this notability is not tied to his religious beliefs, what are your thoughts on revising this content to a state where it does not include the religious qualifiers? Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—why not just break into separate sentences? For instance: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman was raised in a Jewish family.[4] He began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978."

It presently reads: "A native of Pittsburgh, Fineman attended Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1966.[3] Fineman, who was raised in a Jewish family,[4] began his journalism career at The Louisville Courier-Journal, covering the environment, the coal industry and state politics before joining the newspaper’s Washington bureau in 1978." Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Settled, I trust. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The separate sentence helps, but it is still confusing that the article mentions that he was raised in a Jewish family at all. Given that it does not have anything to do with his reason for notability, is there a reason why should it be included? Shouldn't the article follow the same conventions that the article about Josh Weinstein does, for the reasons cited above? Thanks for continuing this discussion so objectively--I appreciate the constructive responses that Bus stop and Collect have contributed. Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—I think one article bears less than perfect correlation to another article. Would you agree with that, to an extent? Nevertheless let me ask you, have you encountered any source saying that the notable individual you refer to—Josh Weinstein—either is Jewish or was raised in a Jewish family? Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is biographically relevant - it's a biography, and in a complete biography we discuss things that are of note to someone's life, career, and times - who their parents were, where they were born, their siblings, spouse, and so on. If a person's cultural or religious upbringing (or, frankly, most any part of their upbringing) seems to be significant to their life story then it improves the article to give it due weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

off topic, please rethink this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot. There are two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world. The 'pro-Jewish' ones, and the 'anti-Jewish' ones. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if it told all of them them to fuck off elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it was not initially evident, there is in fact one source, Chicago Jewish News, which discusses Weinstein's religion. That source--like jweekly.com--will always describe the religious background of the subjects of its articles. This is certainly a fine thing for these publications to do. However for Wikipedia's purposes, sources such as jweekly.com or Chicago Jewish News are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of a BLP's religion. I would suggest that since Time Magazine covered Mel Gibson's religion in this article, and he is notable for his work directing a film about religion, the inclusion of religious upbringing in the Mel Gibson Wikipedia article is appropriate. However since the only publication mentioning Josh Weinstein's religious upbringing is Chicago Jewish News, the Wikipedia article, appropriately, does not include his religious upbringing because it has not been documented in non-religion-focused reliable sources.

I actually think all of the contributors to this discussion have made solid, grounded points. On one hand, Wikipedia articles--particularly those about living people--should not just mention a person's religion unless reliable sources which do not exist solely to document religion (again, nothing wrong with this at all) have established that the BLP's religion is directly tied to their notability. However everyone sees the world differently, and I can respect why others may hold a different viewpoint.

Do others agree or disagree with the suggestion that jweekly.com is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of this living person's religion? I am open to all perspectives, and also want to reiterate that I intend for the community to have the final say on this (not I, given my WP:COI). Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems perfectly reliable as to the facts - he was bar mitzvah-ed, parents were sunday school teachers, went to a Jewish high school, went on some kind of self-discovery walkabout to Israel. Sounds about as Jewish as most Jewish kids in America. Keeping in mind that notability isn't a content inclusion standard, it's more a mix of weight and relevance (I try to use "noteworthiness" as a shorthand): I don't think we can categorically rule in or out an entire publication, it depends on the subject, the article in question, and what it says. Jewish publications sometimes run "Jews in the News" type columns, where mere inclusion doesn't establish notability and may not even be factually correct. On the other hand, a full-on feature article in a publication with strong editorial standards, profiling a person's relationship to their faith, culture, roots, etc., would definitely establish due significance. This one, alas, is in between. It devotes a couple paragraphs out of a several page article to describing his Jewish upbringing. If it were a general interest periodical that would be a strong sign that this is a biographically important fact. Here, because of the nature of the publication they have to tie his Jewishness in somehow or else why would they have an article? I guess the answer is that I would downplay the weight of this source but not discount it entirely. If that's the only source anyone can find, it may not be strong enough. Plus, in debatable cases we ought to take the BLP subject's own (apparently) wishes into account. Just what are they asking us to do here? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, the way you put this makes a lot of sense. I just spoke with Howard Fineman about this and he indicated that he'd prefer the Wikipedia article about him refrain from discussing his religion or religious upbringing. He feels that since his reason for notability (as a journalist) is not related to his religious upbringing. I've informed him of WP:OWN and WP:COI, so he understands that this is a Wikipedia article about him, and not his Wikipedia article. He trusts the community of editors here to ultimately make the right decisions. Does that context help in establishing consensus on this? Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. My stake on this particular issue is slight. Any other opinions? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—I see no justification for leaving out such a basic feature of biographies as that the individual is of Jewish background. In my opinion this is standard fare in biographies. In my opinion the inclusion of information similar to that is to be expected. I think that generally speaking, the reader's interests are best served by our providing information rather than by our withholding information. I don't think the subject should be allowed to persuade us to leave out information if it can be argued that some readers might find it of interest and if no reasons relating to impropriety can be found, and I think none can be found pertaining to this instance. The argument seems to be that the information should be removed because it is irrelevant, but I think that is debatable. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Bus stop. You and Wikidemon both make good points. I recognize that this ultimately comes down to someone, hopefully a few Wikipedians, making an editorial decision. I think we can all agree that this falls into a grey area in terms of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, which is why, fortunately, we have intelligent editors here making decisions instead of just letting an algorithm compile these articles. Because I have a COI related to this subject I feel it would be best for me to bow out of this thread and step onto the observation deck for the moment, in order to leave the ultimate decision up to uninvolved editors such as yourself, Wikidemon, Collect and any others who may be able to weigh in. Regards,Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bedford—in looking this over again I just noticed that the Chicago Jewish News story is about a different Josh Weinstein. This one goes by the name J. Elvis Weinstein. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Bus stop. My mistake! --Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for a few other BLP/N experts to weigh in on this thread and come to a conclusion? As noted above, I have a COI, so I would prefer to limit myself to presenting information, leaving it up to you all to make the editorial decision. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zuckerberg Jewish?

Discussion. Influential Jew, marriage commentary, RS?. The question is whether or not enough evidence exists supporting Zuckerberg being included as an American Jew as categories or Jewish as ethnicity in the infobox. Some editors invoke BLPCAT. Thoughts? Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that Wikifan come here as the consensus at the Talk page seems to be running against his position. It's very long thread on the Talk page, although there is a fair amount of repetition of people's views. I'll quickly summarize some of it, hopefully, fairly. I think everyone agrees that Zuckerberg was born to Jewish parents and raised Jewish. Everyone also agrees that he self-identifies as an atheist. I believe, although not as certainly, that everyone agrees that he has not self-identified as a Jew, either from a religious or cultural (what Wikipedians often call ethnic) standpoint. All of this, except the last point (as it's an absence of something), is articulated in the body of the article. The question is pretty much as Wikifan states it above. Part of the problem - and this is nothing new - comes from the ambiguity in our own policies and categories about Jews, as well as the fact that Jews are not monolithic in their belief systems. Some identify as Jewish by religion, and some identify as Jewish by culture and heritage. And, of course, some identify as Jewish by all of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he's a person of Jewish descent - that is the WP:BLP. take care as to reporting as if fact about living people - position simple really- move along, - Bbb23 is right, our ~~Jew issues~~ categories in this sector are vague/disruptive (disruptive as we have many unresolved and unsatisfactory discussions/outcomes that need clarifying, especially about living people but not solely) - If users want to add that someone is a mother line Jew then the cat should clearly state that - Matriarchal Jew - Youreallycan 22:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this redline of "self-identified" as a Jew. I guess it could be inferred since he was raised Jews, and had a bar mitzvah. It seems pretty excessive to expect individuals to go out and say, verbatim - "I'm a Jew" when a laundry list of reliable sources explicitly identify Zuckerberg as a Jew. Not of "Jewish descent." I do not believe blpcat applies because this is ethnicity, not religion. Do we expect individuals to self-identify as African Americans or Native Americans? I hope to see uninvolved, third party weigh in on this discussion because it could have serious ramifications for other Jewish BLPs that possess half the sources supporting Zuckerberg's status as a Jew. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the specific WP:BLP issue that vague comments fail to mention or differentiate the connection between ethnicity and religion. - Youreallycan 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside Wikipedia policy for the moment and approaching this as a commonsense matter, the article body does a good job of explaining who Zuckerberg is from a religious/cultural perspective. The infobox and cats would destroy that good work and label him in a misleading fashion. Wikifan believes (I think) that Zuckerberg inherits his Jewish characteristics, whatever they might be, from his parents. I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew. Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be misleading? Plenty of info on Jewish "genes" - Genetic studies on Jews. "I strongly disagree that just because one is born Jewish, one is a Jew." This kind of thinking is problematic as editors should only contribute based on policy and sources. If Zuckerberg's parents are Jewish, and he was raised Jewish, and he is described as one of the world's most influential Jews by an RS, there shouldn't be any serious disagreement as to whether or not Zuckerberg is Jewish. Jewishness is an ethnicity, as are Native Americans and African-Americans. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope we get an answer to the question, how would it be misleading. I think we've got a case here that suggests that the approach some people have been taking to this issue is not so convincing. For one thing, it means that whether someone is identified here as Jewish is a question being addressed in ways different from that used for other ethnicities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will never get an answer on this. We never have before. Why should now be different? I believe there is a difference between having certain genetic characteristics (like the cases cited by Wikifan) and identifying with a culture or a heritage, and the WP article pointed to by Wikifan about Jews and genes is hardly conclusive; most of those kinds of articles are not. I also don't want to get into a discussion about African-Americans and what exactly that means to different people because that would really create a messy tangential argument. I've stated, rather succinctly I believe, why it is misleading in Zuckerberg's case, and I don't want to open this up to a global discussion. That belongs in another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question ("How would it be misleading") was posed by Wikifan in relation to Zuckerburg. You have asserted that editing the infobox and cats in the way Wikifan proposes would be misleading, but you haven't indicated how it would be misleading -- hence the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox would be misleading because it makes it sound like Zuckerberg is an ethnic Jew when there's no evidence he is (remember, I don't accept that cultural Judaism is inherited), and the cat would be even more misleading as it makes no distinction religious and cultural Jews, but, even if it means "or", it would be misleading in the same way the infobox would be. Everything flows from the initial premises, and Wikifan and I disagree on the premises.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errm do you have a different definition of "ethnic"from me - I always believed it was (and quoting our article) "a group of people who [...] identify with each other through a common heritage, consisting of a common culture" So how can you differentiate cultural when cultural is the key element of ethnic? I assume you are looking for biological or something similar - for those cases the "of Jewish Descent" category is more appropriate but it's not the case for Zuckerberg who you seem to admit was raised culturally Jewish before choosing Atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of Wikipedia, I accept our definition. My point is that there is no evidence that Zuckerberg identifies with the Jewish culture.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in BLPCAT requiring self-identification with ethnicity/culture. The available sources on the matter are quite clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I've mostly stayed out of this issue, I have to say, for the record, both Newsweek ("Ashkenazi Jews are one of the most coherent genetic groups that exist") and The New York Times ("The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population") and every other scholarly source support Jews being an ethnic group (or a "genetic" group, as Bbb23 says). I also am beginning to view Bbb23 as highly disruptive. Previously, he stated that people shouldn't be categorized as "Jewish" per "BLPcat" because the category does not differentiate between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity. Now, his opinion has shifted further towards whichever direction, in that people can't be described as being "ethnically" Jewish either! (because your ethnicity is not inherited from your parents? I hate to break it to you, but your parents are the only ones who transmit your ethnicity to you. There is no other way to become a member of an ethnic group. That's kind of how it works. "Identifying" with this culture or that does not make you a member of an ethnicity, nor does not identifying with it make you a non-member. Hence the term "ethnically Jewish" and not "culturally Jewish", two different things). Now, I don't know if Bbb23 is my fifth cousin or not, but he doesn't seem to understand the issues here; in fact, more and more so with every passing year since his position is more extreme now than it was a year ago. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, remarkably constructive, AHW. As far as I know, my position on these issues is just as "highly disruptive" as it was before. The only thing that's "changed" is my promise to myself not to let myself get sucked in too deeply to these discussions. I've broken that promise, unfortunately. Zuckerberg will no doubt survive whatever consensus is reached, although I seriously doubt there will be one.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more extreme. Given that Zuckerberg had "Ethnicity:Jewish" in his infobox for a long time (which I found a little strange, but ok) and you seemed to have no problem with it until now. I proposed this as a compromise between the two feuding sides on this issue - but you reverted it out of the article, even though you said that, even in your opinion, it didn't violate BLPcat. Now, if you hadn't reverted it, the discussion would have been over, since most editors seemed satisfied with that idea. Therefore, I think it's fair to view your actions as disruptive, and yourself by extension. Wikipedia has gotten more extreme on this issue in general. I remember when I was starting out, people were having debates about whether to describe people born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers as Jewish, and storylines of that sort. I can't recall any debates about whether people born to two Jewish parents, and who do not practice a faith other than Judaism, can be described as Jewish. That seemed, understandably, a given. Now, such debates are commonplace, thanks in part to you (but not exclusively to you). What a strange shift, and how wasteful to time, energy, and common sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're forcing me to do a lot of work looking back at the history of the Zuckerberg article. In spot-checking the last 6 months, you are correct that Jewish ethnicity was in the infobox. The Jewish-related cats have undergone many shifts, but I didn't check who did what when (except see below). As for removal of Jewish ethnicity from the infobox after the period of "stability", that was not done by me. It was done by another editor on May 10 here. Without laboriously looking at the complete history, what triggered the tortured discussion on the Zuckerberg Talk page happened many days later when Wikifan added the Jewish cat (not the ethnicity), and I did in fact revert. That discussion then expanded into the ethnicity issue, causing me to focus on it again. How you can call any of this "highly disruptive" on my part is beyond me, but whatever, you've said in the past we almost never agree on anything, so it shouldn't surprise me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't remove the ethnicity thing in early May. That was someone else. But you removed it twice now, even though my strong sense was that it would have neutralized the discussion (Wikifan seemed pleased with it, for one). We almost never agree on anything? Well, we did agree on something in August 2010, when your opinion on this "issue" seemed rational and fact-based. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've removed it since because of the discussion, but I don't think my views have changed, although they may have refined a bit as I've learned more about Wikipedia's rules. As for the Goldwyn discussion, that was about cats, not about ethnicity in the infobox. As for not agreeing, it's something I vaguely recall your saying a long time ago when we butted heads over something. I ain't looking for it as it's really not all that important. I just wish you'd stick to substance without resorting to characterizing my conduct, but you're not the only editor who does this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your personal views on this issue are relevant, since you keep citing them ("Some characteristics of human beings are genetic. I am unaware of any Jewish gene"). I cite Newsweek and The New York Times, and you cite... yourself. There is a difference. Are we talking about the infobox now or the categories? If it's the infobox, why are we here, considering you admitted that even under your own interpretation of it, BLPcat wouldn't effect "Ethnicity" in infobox. My main point is that if you hadn't reverted the compromise addition, the discussion would have likely already ended, since Wikifan seemed satisfied with the compromise and you hadn't touched that part of the infobox either, previously. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "main point" got a bit lost in your attack on me. Your point about personal views is too complicated for me to respond to, or at least I don't have the energy or the will. I've said everything I have to say here and on the Zuckerberg Talk page. Consensus will be reached or it won't. The article will be whatever the last edit to it is, even in the absence of consensus. Whatever happens, this won't be the last time the subject comes up for this article or for others. I'm going to very belatedly keep my promise to myself and suck myself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really mean that last part, then that's something else we can both jointly endorse. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so we're agreed that Zuckerberg can include an American Jew/Jewish atheist cat or Jewish as ethnicity? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not agreed that this is a candidate for the American Jew category. Zuckerburg is a living person and has said he is an atheist. --John (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John—why not just abide by what reliable sources say? They all say that Mark Zuckerberg is a Jew. And not one source says that he is not a Jew. Shouldn't that settle it, for Wikipedia purposes? You mention that Zuckerberg is an "atheist" but what does that have to do with him being a Jew? We have an article Jewish atheism. Believing in God is not essential to being a Jew. Do you happen to have a source that might support a notion that being an atheist somehow disqualifies one from being a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John is entitled to his beliefs but editors are obligated to include information reported by an RS. Zuckerberg is an American Jew, he is an ethnic Jew. He doesn't practice Judaism, neither does Natalie Portman and millions of other Jews worldwide. This whole "Jewish descent" fascination is getting quite old and is not supported by BLPCAT. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCAT requires self-identification. Having a reliable source which says that he is a Jew doesn't mean that you are allowed to put him in a category of Jews. You'll need to find a source where he calls himself one. Furthermore, we may only use the category if being a Jew is related to his notability, which it isn't. And editors are not obliged to include information from a reliable source; a reliable source is necessary for inclusion, but it's not always sufficient. Something may be in a reliable source and still have to be excluded for other reasons. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Arromdee—I think there is an underlying illogic. Note that for instance in this edit the individual is being removed from Category:American Jews and being placed in Category:Jewish atheists. Wouldn't the same logic be applicable to those two categories? What logic would argue for him being in one and not the other? Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dale Farm#Who Is Grattan Puxon ?

Resolved

– Edited by both Dweller and me. Re-open if any further concerns. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Talk:Dale Farm#Who Is Grattan Puxon ? is problematic. However, I have (and am proud to have) a clear conflict of interest on this topic, so I thought I'd better bring it here. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Maynard

Resolved

– Fixed (vandalism-blanking also reverted), thank you. Dates now match his official site/FB-linked from there; removed middle name, it can be added if a source is found. 92.6.202.54 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the information box on the Conor Maynard, I believe it says 20th of November instead of 21st, small error as its written correctly down below. Also I believe that his middle name is "Paul" and not "Pablo". That's all :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgray311 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Rosenberg

Can somebody have a look at the "Sid Rosenberg" page please? I noticed it while adding wikilinks to the article above on "Scott Kaplan", with whom Sid Rosenberg worked. The rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated and I think it gets worse as you go down the page. I have to go do some errands or I'd start on it myself. Thanks. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanups and it's better than it was. It no longer implies he's dead for one. Anyone else is welcome to continue on it. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Bellesiles‎

Has been "deleted by redirect" [‎http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_A._Bellesiles&curid=2063211&action=history] repeatedly despite the issue of "concensus" being raised that he is BLP1E and should not have an article. I have suggested that this issue (BLP1E) is one which should be raised at AfD and not used as a blanket reason to delete by redirect. I suggest that he is notable as an author of more than one book reviewed by newspapers (including the NYT), and also meets the academic notabiity standards (professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles). I suggest "BLP1E" would only apply if he did not meet such standards - but that since he meets both, that it can not be used as a reason for this deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I also note the "consensus" is a 3 - 2 "consensus. Collect (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bellesiles' notability derives from the book Arming America, which he published to great acclaim but which was subsequently found to contain misleading and unprofessional scholarship. It was a pretty big scandal, and it's covered in great detail at Arming America. Since Bellesiles is notable in the context of this scandal, and since independent reliable sources have little to say about him outside of this particular scandal, there appears (in my view) to be a consensus at the talkpage to redirect Michael A. Bellesiles to Arming America, per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E.
Discussion of this issue has been extensive; in fact, it was discussed on this very noticeboard about two weeks ago. Since Collect has neglected to link to previous discussions, here are some potentially useful links:
- Michael A. Bellesiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arming America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BLP/N thread from two weeks ago which concluded with a decision to redirect the article
- Current talkpage discussion thread, in which consensus appears to support a redirect
I think the last link - to the talk page discussion - demonstrates that editors are making an effort to reason with Collect, or at least make sense of his objections, but they are a moving target and we seem to be talking past each other. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I subnit that consensus was not so reached, that Bellesiles is not BLP1E, that he has multiple books reviewed in such minor places as the NYT, that he also meets the academic notability standards as a professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles, etc. Further that I sought to remove improper material attacking him from the BLP, and that I added material which treats him favourably. [1] Nor do I regard anything other than an AfD as being the proper means to remove the content of an article from Wikipedia.
  Further that on 15 May MastCell made this edit: [2] with the specific comment (Collect's version is much closer to where we should be; see discussion at WP:BLP/N) thus showing you knew my position as of 15 May. The idea that my position on 15 May was somehow a mystery is belied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're wrong. AFD is for getting an administrator to hit the delete button, removing the article and all of its edit history from view. There's no such thing as "deletion by redirect". Redirects are enacted with the edit tool, aren't limited to administrators, don't involve the administrator deletion tool, don't remove the edit history, and aren't within the remit of Articles for deletion. Don't send things to AFD where no-one including yourself wants the deletion button pressed. I will speedily chuck such a nomination out (unless I'm beaten to it). The article's talk page is for discussion of mergers, redirects, and all of the things that are done to the article with the edit tool. (And this noticeboard, WikiProject talk pages, and RFC are ways of obtaining more editors' opinions in such a talk page discussion.) The delete button is not the only way to address notability issues, as has already been pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Making a page not visible to ordinary readers is, IMO, a "deletion." The entire page content was removed. The rationales were: the person is not nottable (shown errant), that this is a simple case of BLP1E (shown errant) and that is done per consensus (now shown to be errant). Might you tell us why the redirect is proper, please? Collect (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Come now! You've been around for six years at least. You've seen what an actual deletion with the deletion tool looks like. Your opinion is wrong. A redirect is not a deletion; it isn't enacted with the deletion tool; and "ordinary readers" can see the edit history just fine. You should know these basics of the writing tool that we're all using by now. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And you should recognize that using a redirect to accomplish the same net result to outside users is the equivalent of a deletion. Especially since it consists of the entire removal of the article content. Pointing out that an admin deletion also removes the history is not relevant when the purpose of the deletion of the entire article content suffices as far as anyone seeking to read about the person is concerned. Cheers - but saying "well - technically deletion of the entire content is not really 'deletion'" is non-utile here since my point was fairly clear to everyone else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it does not accomplish the same result. I've already explained why. Twice. And you should know why already, as this is basic using-our-writing-tool stuff. Moreover: Far from your point being clear, it was already explained to you by MastCell as incorrect on the talk page. Now get a grip and stop mischaracterizing things as deletions when you know that they are not, and stop wrongly claiming Articles for deletion as the "proper means" for something that is not deletion. Such histrionics about how "It's all been deleted!" when it patently hasn't been, ever, and obstructionist refusal to recognize the article's talk page as a proper venue for discussing whether the article should be a redirect or not should be beneath you. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I explained my use of ordinary English. I think that is sufficient. It is not arcane. The content was deleted and ordinary English would say that a page with no content has had that content "deleted." . Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't use ordinary English. "redirect" isn't ordinary English. It's a term of art for people who use our writing tool. So is "delete" uttered in the very same breath. The simple truth is that you indulged in histrionics and obstructionism. To believe otherwise would be to believe that after six years you still haven't grasped even the very basics of the writing tool, what a deleted page looks like, the very different appearance of a redirected page, and how to tell the one from the other. Even people who aren't involved in the project are capable of that. I really did think that this sort of thing was beneath you. It sadly looks like it's not, and that you are playing games as MastCell said. Which is a shame, because if you hadn't been as foolish as this, you might had actually talked people around. Instead, you've managed to convince them to ignore you as a silly game-player. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're going in circles here instead of on the article Talk page. A couple of guidelines may be helpful to resolve this. First, WP:RNEUTRAL states, "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated". Second, WP:RFD states, "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article." Although it goes on to state that RfD can be used to centralize a discussion on more difficult cases, the fact that two discussions are going on, one at the Bellesiles Talk page and one here, is more than sufficient for this redirect. I think Collect should let go. He can continue to believe whatever he wants, but there is a consensus for the redirect, and he needs to abide by it, even if he dislikes it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs)
- OK unsigned, -- first off the reason was BLP1E - now the reason is it has suddenly become a POV fork? Since the extraneous material about Arming America was removed by me and others from the BLP, the claim of BLP fork fails. Sorry -- this looks like alphabetically going down eevery possible reason for deleting material which is properly sourced, is not defamatory of a living person, and is not duplicative of another article (required to be a POV fork). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lucas

Resolved

– RFC closed, consensus to remove

The subject has requested we remove from the biography a comment about his former partner's death, something which took place after their relationship ended. An RfC on the topic has been opened. As the strict policy issues here may be perceived as something of a grey area, I would encourage editors with BLP expertise to cast an eye over it. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's preposterous that we need an RfC to accomplish this, it should be done immediately with no further discussion. The article is about Matt Lucas, and the death of a former partner well after the relationship ended is not relevant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done in this edit, though I have no doubt it will be restored.--ukexpat (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a human interest aspect to this and may have insight into their relationship. This incident was not long after they separated, as is being suggested, just a few months. Nasnema Chat 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Left AN note asking it be reviewed for close; it's been open since 23 May. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Married Erica Aaron on 09/04/2010 in Omaha, Nebraska.

some one has stolen my son identity! this information is true at all.. how did a nation wide site like this can allow this to happen. Steffon bradford is married to aaron on 09/04/2010 on omaha, nebraska isn't real information at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provide321 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending sentence. It was unsupported by what few sources the article has. It was the sole edit by an IP a few months ago. Probably just vandalism. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was included at page creation and removed by User:The-Pope, then restored by the IP. While there's nothing to indicate it's the same person, a Steffon T. Bradford (whose age is proximate) marrying Erica Aaron has two online matches, The Douglas County Clerk's office in Omaha, Nebraska and omaha.com. Dru of Id (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I stand corrected. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Magnotta

Large tracts of BLP violating speculation relating to a murder suspect, much of it based on tabloid gossip, also anonymous 3rd parties. While I appreciate that this is a very interesting set of events, editors are not showing restraint and [are instead] adding every salacious tidbit, such as claims about the suspect's sexual performance, gossip from people claiming to have been his ex-lovers, an anonymous guy from Craig's List, etc etc. Also overstepping the line re innocent until proven guilty and stating that he has committed previous crimes and posted videos to the internet showing them, and has been "identified" as the killer by the users of a trashy website. To defend the inclusion, one editor has said "The National Post is a reliable source. Please do not delete material based on one's personal opinion of the subject matter." I don't have a personal opinion of the subject matter, but I can still see that BLP is not being adhered to in this article. Gwen Chan 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quite large trove of reliable sources on this matter. For example, USA Today cited the police:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-01/Chinese-victim-body-parts-murder/55328662/1

"Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder. The video, posted online, shows a man stabbing another man with an ice pick while the victim lies naked and tied up. The first man later reveals he has slashed the other man's throat. He also dismembers the corpse and performs sexual acts with it.

'We have quite convincing proof of the crime he committed,' Lafreniere said Friday, referring to the video.

While we should be careful of using less reputable sources, there is are much reliable source citations for some of the material...for example, the existence of the "snuff film". When the police say "We have quite convincing proof" and USA Today says that this refers to the video, that's something that can be included.Ryoung122 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the claims of "incest" and things like that need not be included. However, when you delete a huge amount of material all at once, this leads to confusion. It is best to deal with one issue at a time, rather than "throwing the baby out with the bath water".Ryoung122 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see valid sources being removed from this article, along with substantial amounts of sourced content. The Xtra! papers, while printed for local free-circulation monthly or semi-monthly, are not "tabloids" in the class of the (paid-circulation) National Enquirer and Sun. Most of what is being removed is sourced from mainstream news outlets so it might be worth keeping an eye on some of the content deletion in case it goes a little too far. As for previous crimes? There is a criminal conviction in Ontario for fraud involving a spending spree with a stolen AmEx card, so on this at least one can stop using the word alleged as he has had his day in an Ontario court. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wade

Jeremy Wade was born March 23, 1956...not May 5th. This was confirmed on Icon Films, Bristol website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.103.182 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have you got a link to the related website ? - IMO he is not independently notable enough to require a Wikipedia biography, the article as such is primary promotional content, no independent reliable sources have reported about him, which is a bigger problem than what specific day in 1956 he was born on. As a person of limited independant note he should imo and interpretation of wikipedia guidelines be a redirect to his primary notability , which is River Monsters - and also looks promotional to me as does the related Icon Films - all promotional imo - Wikipedia is not a TV quide etc... I made some edits , mostly related to uncited, and neutrality and promotion and cut it in half - Youreallycan 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched for sources I agree, and I've now redirected his biography-stub to the "River Monsters" article. If in-depth coverage about him should be published in reliable third-party independent sources in the future, the case for a standalone biography article can be re-examined. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong & Getty

This article is about an AM radio morning show that covers most of Northern CA. The hosts continually invite listeners to "spice up" or "vandalize" the article, leading to outrageous edits such as this most recent diff and this diff chosen at random. I don't know how to address this. Maybe semi protection to discourage anonymous IPs?--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes would work but is as yet not available - you can ask for WP:Semi protection at WP:RFPP but some Admins are supporters of open editing and will refuse unless vandalism or defamation is at a high level - - I made some edits, mostly related to uncited, promotion and NPOV, and cut it to a third. Youreallycan 19:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected 90 days due to outside encouragement of vandalism, and a history of vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Vaudeville

Beyond Vaudeville was a cable TV shows which seems to have existed to make fun of eccentric New Yorkers. The article has a list of people who are supposed to have appeared on it, which is completely unsupported by any kind of reference. I would have said that this list is in itself a BLP violation, if not an outright hoax, and in addition some of the individual descriptions are certainly violations. Unfortunately one editor is edit warring to keep this stuff in the article [3], [4], and to shut down discussion on the talk page [5] and on this page [6], [7] (NB: edit summaries are not correct). I don't know why he is so determined to keep this massive BLP violation in the encyclopedia. Anyway, some independent views would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.101.172 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC) trolling ipsock of banned editor Echigo mole[reply]

Well, I don't want to comment on the editor and their nose for sniffing things out, but I do believe the list has no place here. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the show actually notable on its own? AFAICT it is mentioned in the NYT only because of Oddville, MTV into which it is a really good merge candidate. Collect (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the same idea after looking at three of the four references. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Well, redirected. The sources are on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This section was added three times by trolling socks of community banned editor Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Irrespective of the merits of this article (which they have edited on and off for a number of years and on which I have no view at all), this disruptive troll has posted three times on this page. First using the above IP range, preferred since December 2011 by Echigo mole.[8] Then as a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, Rita Mordio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[9] And now as another ipsock in the range, Echigo mole is not an honest person and his goal is to make mischief on wikipedia. The series of articles that Drmies just deleted elsewhere (thanks!) seems to be part of that general pattern of mischief-making. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also gone--well, redirected. Those hoaxes, them was pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ziyi

There has been a frequent libelous and defamatory reporting noted as a 'Controversy' under the Zhang Ziyi biographical page. The actress has denied the unfounded claims made by Apple Daily and is taking legal action against the tabloid. By posting the false report on Wikipedia, the authors are only further slandering the actress. A libelous tabloid making a false claim (with no quoted sources) against a well respected professional cannot be considered a 'controversy.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.6.31.226 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, false or not, I don't think The China Post is the most authoritative source for a report of this kind, and I will remove the information. Juicy scandal though. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Hamal

I've got to head to bed, but I just pulled "rumors" of affairs and mental illness out fo this article, it's large, essentially unsourced, and could easily have other issues going on in it. Additional eyes appreciated. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rv some more, this time trivia. Next time please include a link, that saves some clicks. ;) I hope you dreamed of pleasant things. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Morrison

I was reviewing this article on an unrelated OTRS matter and can see there is some edit-warring going on between an IP (who claims to be the subject) and another editor as to whether to include specific details regarding the subject's medical history. Perhaps someone here could eyeball it to make sure all is BLP-compliant with regard to the disputed material? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have left a note on the article talk page advising that I have requested a review. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper article - Kansas City Star "Tommy Morrison, now 42, still..." [10] (dead link) Feb 12 2011 is used heavily in the article. Anyone have access to it? --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a copy online.[11] --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that when I was looking but didn't think it was okay to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that that article is the most important article for the contested HIV material. However, there are lots of other sources in the WP article that are dead links, as well as one that I can't see because it's behind a subscription wall. There are also sources that not cited with URLs, so I can't see those without the paper copies. As far as the HIV section itself, the thing that troubles me most is the analysis of the NYT article ([12]), which raises some significant questions about his HIV tests. Although it doesn't reach any definitive conclusions, the slant in our article appears to cherrypick the "bad" parts form the NYT article and not aaddress the "good" ones. I haven't done much about that because it's hard to do anything without more sources completing the picture. In the meantime, I did a fair amount of work on his criminal problems, removing material from the article that shouldn't be there. There again, though, I was hampered by lack of available sources. The article clearly needs more work.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, which source is the one behind the paywall you cannot access? I may be able to help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one (citation #6).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access that one unfortunately. There is however an article from The Independent titled "Tommy Morrison to make boxing comeback despite having HIV virus" and one the Daily Record "Former heavyweight boxer Tommy Morrison who is HIV positive wants to re turn to the ring for one more fight to raise money for children with AIDS" as well as The New York Times "Morrison Plans One More Fight Despite His H.I.V. Diagnosis" from the same time period (Sept. 1996). I could email them to you if you'd like to look a them. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to revisit the article and do some research on my own, although I can't promise when I'll get to it. In case I'm unable to find what you've found, go ahead and e-mail the sources to me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I just need an email address to send them to (you can email me privately with the info) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bettany

Resolved

– No more multiple births.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following appears in the Personal Life section:

The quintuplets, Abigail, Mary, Kristina and Benjamin, born on September 21, 2007 and the twins, Anastacia and Cecillia, born on November 24, 2008, are fruits of their relationship with the Brazilian, Lidiane.

I believe this may be an error because I cannot find evidence of these children in any other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LASwartz (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quintuplets sentence wasn't sourced, and I've removed it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP PROD removals

Okay, while I'm not sure this is the right forum for this, I think it will work. I recently marked Yvonne Wartiainen, Shani Haider, and Arash Howaida for BLP PROD. Yvonne Wartiainen and Shani Haider had their PROD templates removed, but I'm not sure if the references provided are reliable sources, and I would like a second opinion. As for Arash Howaida: it was speedily deleted under G11 and A7, then recreated. Again, I'm not sure if the sources are reliable, and would like an outside look at it. David¹²¹⁷ 02:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other two, but the content of Arash Howaida was almost entirely pasted from other websites (which appear to predate the article). The only sources are either regarding his father, or promotional fluff. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Rogers 2

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

Has attracted several "new editors" each of who proposes the exact same edits founded in blogs and "court records" etc. which are on their face contentious (that he was associated with illegal offshore gambling operations and criminals) relying heavily on the blog "Atlanta Unfiltered". I am a teensy bit suspicious that such new editors make exactly the same edits - might someone opine on the remote possibility that they are acting in a less than proper manner? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/M1jam. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff in question. I don't have a dog in this race. But a couple of points seem relevant. First, there are other sources (the ones that matter are, in the version prior to Collect's deletion, 6 to 13 -- there's even a Fox ref in there!). Second, I don't see any court records being used. Third, Atlanta Unfiltered does not appear to be a blog. If they are sockpuppets, then of course that can and should be dealt with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer at the refs for the contentious claims. Then read WP:BLP about sourcing of contentious claims. And I sincerely hope you do not intend to support any likely socks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section being added is obviously poorly written, but it's easily sourcable to [13], amongst others. Surely you don't mean to say that's not a reliable source, do you? And regarding supporting socks? Surely you don't mean that if someone is on the same side of an argument as an abusive sockpuppet they are to be disregarded as well, do you? Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No -- but I consider such edits as [14] to be UNDUE and violative of WP:BLP, and quite improper. And people who reinsert the edits of socks are quite likely to be viewed enablers of their behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the cited source states “Some 14 years ago, my company had a contract to perform broadcasting duties on a nationally televised show which was aired on the USA Network. … I was reading from a predetermined script on a national sports television show that has been in production for 35 years,” he said. while the claim made in the BLP is using the name Will Rogers "The Winner" Rogers, allegedly encouraging bettors to dial a "pay-per-call number" and claiming to have an 80% success rate for his predictions may be misleading. Collect (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source includes the passage "his predictions, which he claimed had an 80 percent success rate" and also indicates quite clearly that Rogers appeared as "Will 'The Winner' Rogers". There's no BLP violation at all in having our article include this information. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you then forget to add Rogers' statements also in the source -- omitting stuff is a poor use of a source. Meanwhile [15] shows the sock's crowing about their winning on this BLP violation. Congrats. Your stress on the negative wording and omitting or eliding the rest of the story in the same source is telling. Collect (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, given how shabbily you've treated people who've had to deal with Scibaby and other grossly abusive sockpuppeteers, you are getting far more support here than you have any right to expect. It's a testament to the goodwill of the editors who are helping you out here, because you've thrown people under the bus in a heartbeat when the shoe's been on the other foot. The meatpuppets have been handled, so please ease up and engage with the non-meatpuppet editors about the reliable sources on the talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I find more and more frustrating is the simple inaccuracy of Collect's statements in situations like this. Collect says I forgot to add Rogers' statements -- but this edit shows as clear as day that I included something Rogers said about it. Previous inaccuracies are noted above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You include the fact he called this "gutter politics" while failing to note he said he was reading prepared scripts and was not a handicapper -- he was a paid actor in ads. But all you managed to find for balance were the words "gutter politics" and not his flat out denial that he was a sports tout. Cheers - and note again what the trolls posted at [16]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More inaccuracies: not "ads", but instead a sports show, and he said nothing about not being a "sports tout" (source). It's pretty hard to work with you when there's a continual stream of half-true statements. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common English - there is no difference between a "tout" and a "handicapper" in this context, so that cavil is inane. And since he denied doing the handicapping, and all you manage to add is that he calls this "gutter politics" I humbly suggest that your interpretation is less in concert with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV than is mine. And saying I make "half-true statements" is an egregious abuse of Wikiquette. What is a false use of a source is to forget to include his absolute denial fof the claim made. Cheers - and try to stay within the proper bounds for noticeboard comments. Collect (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Handicapper" and "tout" are different words with different meanings. Trying to say that "in context" they're the same is novel synthesis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the words as synonyms in the article - SYNTH does not apply to talk page colloquy last I checked <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Messuri

Resolved

– unsourced statement removed.

This article contains the following libelous sentence:

"He took over for Richard Dicaprio, after continuous struggling seasons."

The above is not true and is defamatory to the reputation of Hall of Fame coach Richard DeCaprio. When googling "Richard DeCaprio Arlington" this is the first story that comes up. Messuri did not take over for DeCaprio after "continuous struggling seasons". That is a subjective statement about the quality of Arlington's Hockey seasons and paints Coach DeCaprio in a bad light. Remove this language immediately.

John Messuri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.68.168 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, as unsourced. You can do this yourself: "anyone can edit". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Scrapbook

Resolved

– Removed & user warned. Thank you. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to insert unsourced claims defamatory to living person (editor of a political news site).[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.133.187 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Mejía

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

Someone keeps changing the information on Edgar Mejia to say that he plays for Real Madrid on loan from Barcelona. Attempts have been made to correct the errors, but eventually someone logs back on to edit the page with false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.39.93 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this one but didn't see anything about Real Madrid. If there's a current problem, please be more specific about what it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King's College School, Cambridge

King's College School, Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kitty101423 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly (over more than a year) added vast amounts of original reasearch information, much of which is obviously libellous ("The headmaster also showed poor judgement in running the school, particularly in...", "Some parents are now asking why the headmaster is still employed by the school"). Latest edits here [18]. She has ignored repeated requests to discuss on the talk page. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and left a warning. The editor likely needs to be blocked -- this is the only article it edits, unproductively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has just made the same edits again [19]. Once again, there's no acknowledgement of messages left. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 09:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a report at WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Mitchison

The reference to "Graeme Mitchison", a living mathematician, as a "dilettante", could be offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sentence removed.--ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mattes

The article is written like beeing a PR for Daniel Mattes. Several sources are not reliable. Comments like "Bill Gates of the Alps" are not objective. Instead of linking an original source of a newspaper there are links to Daniel Mattes own flickr account.

Salzburger Fenster is a very local magazine. Beeing there on the list of 100 most important people is not worth mentioning in an international encyclopedia. Also this cite was written that it reads like he was 54th most important citicen of Austria, which is wrong, as he was just on the list for Salzburg.

The whole article lacks objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.99.61 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult issue to deal with. There are a lot of references, but in many cases they do not support the content. (Example: this was used to support the notion that he had worked with the NY Times...) I've removed some of it, but it still reads like a promotional/PR thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "puff." And I depuffed a tad more. Collect (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hanemaayer

Can other editors weigh in on what should be done with this article? This man was wrongly convicted of a serious crime and was ultimately acquitted and released. The WP article, until I removed most of it, consisted mostly unsourced material about the case, including negative material about the man. I am thinking that this is a classic example of WP:BLP1E and should be sent to AFD. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- obvious BLP1E, almost certain to be deleted at AfD, as it should be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul Bernardo article already includes as much information as is necessary regarding Hanemaayer's involvement in the case. The page could be made a redirect to Paul Bernardo. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hamilton (entertainer)

Resolved

– IP vandal blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it has been edited to say that andy died on 4 june 2012. he did not it was the saxophonist andy hamilton who died

Adonis Stevenson

Potentially Libelous Third paragraph of "Professional Career" section, final sentence. Alleges, as factual, illegal bias on part of specific referee. Alleges corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.146.3 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not libelous, though it is unsourced (as is the entire paragraph).Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Go ahead and remove it.[reply]

Matthew Grow

I just placed a Prod on him as "not notable" - as I can not find anywhere that a publications director of a church meets general notability guidelines .. but would more than welcome people proving me wrong. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasearching the notability question, I see that the Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) proposed guideline failed. In any case, I was unable to source any WP guideline that would disqualify an otherwise notable published historian for encyclopedic treatment for the reason that he works for a church.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - The young scholar Grow (formerly a professor) is a published historian who directs publications (eg the Joseph Smith Papers, etc.) of the LDS Church's historical department.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt IOW, he is a person who does not meet notability guidelines as a professor, and is only notable for directing the publications office of the LDS church - right? Collect (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the subject is notable for his publications (see blp); however, fwiw, I do believe that Grow's involvement in the JSPP buttresses this notability as a scholar.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this press release, if anyone is LDS and a historian, Matt is apparently currently coordinating interviews for new hires there.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, as publications director, he is acting as a publications director, and even is mentioned as publications director in press releases? Really? Collect (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a publications director does not make one notable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.---wp:N

Come on, folks, it's really not all that complicated. The subject's notability is not related to his status in the Mormon church; rather, his notability is due to his being a preeminent historian in his field, published by academic presses and reviewed in innumerable journals, etc. End of story.

As a side issue (which should be disregarded, as far as mere wp:N is concerned), Dr. Grow's ecclesiastical functionary title is, um, "notable"...as a detail--a mere detail--within any complete biography of him.

Sure, issues such as bias/conflict of interest/etc. come into play when evaluating the contributions of people of a particular subgroup. Such issues must be taken into account when using such scholars' works. --By way of example, absolutely, historians among the descendants of the Fancher-Baker party give short shrift to historians working for the Mormon church and vice versa. (Note that References/MASSACRE PERPETRATORS.pdf this F-B party descendents site's pdf lists novelist and historian Sally Denton as an authority but neglects to mention Ronald W. Walker and Glen M. Leonard, whose tome on the ill-fated emigrant wagon train following the Old Spanish Trail westward was published by Oxford Univ.: both of whom work for the LDS. Yet, the Mormon studies fanboys/girls that edit the WP article on the event tend to give short shrift to popularizer Denton (or even Jon Krakauer), showing comparatively more favor to Walker or Leonard (while also taking into account their ostensibly pro-LDS frame of reference).)

Yet do such considerations mean we must reflexively ghettoize scholars whose expertise is especially regional or else within a field of study pertaining to a particular religion or ethnic subgroup? No.

Relatedly, how must we take into account what a person's day job is, when determining notability of his or her academic or creative output? The answer: we pay it mind to the degree it is relevant. Eg: a hobo whose poetry, copied at library Xerox machines, is all the rage...but only among other hobos...has no encyclopedic notability, per wp:N (wp:RS, etc.). Yet, if this same hobo becomes renown as "the hobo poet" and becomes published by a prestige publisher and his or her work reviewed in reliable sources, then he or she is notable, despite the very common day um "job"/status within society.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the cites in the article, I'd say he's notable. He's a historian whose specialization within American religious history is the history of the Mormon church. He's director of the Publications Division within a religions' official historical body. His book Liberty to the Downtrodden published by Yale University Press (2009) won the 2010 Mormon History Association Best Book Award, and the biographical book Parley P. Pratt by Oxford University Press (2011) won the 2011 Association for Mormon Letters (AML) award. Both associations are independent third-party orgs. He's had multiple works published by top-tier university presses.

Applying WP:Professor "person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", or WP:Author "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" and "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews" not to mention GNG, he'd reasonably be held to qualify. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up the "innumerable" journals: Googlescholar finds only two of his articles cited by anyone at all (one article is cited by 4, another by 2). Far from "innumerable" this is a minor author at best. He appears in absolutely zero instances in the NYT. No academic notability, as he appears to be an "Assistant Professor at the University of Southern Indiana " only ([20]). Wikipedia does not accept that title as conferring notability. And yes, WP:IAR exists, but I doubt you will find backing for eliding notability standards here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the later (2011) journal cite [21] in the article refers to him as "former professor" (no "Assistant") of history at least. When I search on: review "Liberty to the Downtrodden", in googlescholar it does return results including refs to it in other works. Innumerable no, multiple seemingly. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - I was referring to innumerable reviews of his books (which have won several awards between the two). In any case, the subject's middle initial is J. As researchers here may be aware, academics often use somewhat more-complete versions of their names. (Using that monicker, I retrieved 7,840 Google Books hits and 53 Google Scholar hits.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I suggest you look at the google results -- after the frst few we get books like [22] etc. With not a single mention of Matthew Grow therein. In fact, no apparent mention of Grow after the first 22 books -- not 7,840. Shows the weakness of a google search, to be sure, and even more the weakness of thinking a high google count means anything at all. Ditto the scholar results -- the 53 is a bit of an exaggeration if we seek to see of his woprk was cited by scholars. Sorry -- try to find actual notability for the guy instead of making me thingk he is even less notable than I posited. Collect (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, at this point I recommend you open an AfD on the article if you still believe the subject does not meet the requirements of our Notability guidelines. Thanks, 92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lane

This article falsely claims that I was fired from my job at The New Republic and otherwise distorts the details of my career. It is clearly not intended as an objective presentation but the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.49.173 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've butchered some of the early parts of this article, including the lead, as obviously mis-using sources, and biased or misleading sources. Needs more work on the later parts from "Controversies" onwards - and perhaps more work on the whole. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is false -- and unsourced here -- that Marty Peretz privately blamed Charles Lane for Steve Glass's fabrications. It is also false that Lane wrote disparagingly about obese people, or that he faced criticism for doing so, other than a single erroneous column in the City Paper of Washington DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.49.173 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stuff about Glass out of the lede of Lane's bio. --Mollskman (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP grossly abused the sources which made clear that Lane was the "cleaner-upper" who got rid of Glass -- and in no way the one who was involved otherwise. The other bits also editorialised contrary to what the actual sources said - and should be chastised therefor. I did leave in the blogger saying Lane should "chuck off" as it indicated the level of source used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Goetz

Overview: It looks like there is a concerted effort to insert unsourced accusations of animal abuse at Bernhard Goetz. One of the editors fighting against this claims to be Bernhard Goetz.

Examples:

User:RRassendyll says things on Talk:Bernhard Goetz that clearly violate our BLP policy[23]

User:RRassendyll inserts the same BLP-violating material at Bernhard Goetz [24]

172.129.57.123 reverts[25]

172.129.57.123 posts to Bernhard Goetz, claims to be "Bernie Goetz"[26]

162.83.220.208 inserts the same BLP-violating material at Bernhard Goetz [27]

User:Djenner files a case at WP:DRN naming User:R. Rassendyll and User:Bernhard Goetz [28] I close it because neither user exists. (Note: "Rudolf Rassendyll" is a fictional character from The Prisoner of Zenda)

User:Djenner argues for inclusion of material despite failing WP:V [29]

There is a lot more going on, but it's hard to follow because of shifting IPs and users editing while not logged on. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article (Ref #79) about Goetz' squirrel rescue activities appears to be a reliable secondary source. #79 covers the information about squirrel rescue currently in the article. #80 is a blog that does not appear to be a reliable secondary source. #80 does not talk about squirrel rescue. The complained- about edits appear to be original research and are not based on reliable secondary sources. They should not be included in the article unless reliable secondary sources can be found to support the information.Coaster92 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Bernie Goetz is still alive? For some reason I thought he was older than that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised me too, especially the part about squirrel rescue. On the one hand we have a bunch of editors trying to insert claims based on "personal conversation" that he tortures animals. On the other hand we have this unsourced gem from today's version of the article: "He [Goetz] installs squirrel houses, feeds squirrels, performs first aid, and treats squirrels better than official 'rehabilitators'."

No citations, no "X claims that", just an assertion that he treats squirrels better than official "rehabilitators" (with scary quotes, just to pound home the fact that Wikipedia declares those official rehabilitators to be somehow not legitimate). Check back tomorrow and the article might once again contain an unsourced quote where Goetz supposedly said "I love little animals, so I must punish them when they are bad."

I just noticed this mess in passing. I am not willing to devote a lot of time to monitoring and correcting an article about someone I have zero interest in. I thought about posting a report to WP:COIN, but stopping Goetz from editing his own article would give those who want to demonize him free reign. Is there anything I can do to address the problems, or should I just write it off and move on? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it myself, it sounds to me like the "Bernard Goetz" editor is a troll pretending to be Goetz. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sogyal Rinpoche

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

This article is being repeatedly vandalised by having verifiable factual content deleted and links to blog opinion inserted. Maherus (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That whole paragraph was not properly sourced (your own version was no better). I've removed it; I anticipate problems will recur and it would help if others watchlisted it as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cogent Benger is a reputable documentary maker, but references to their programme about Sogyal Rinpoche are being repeatedly deleted. Maherus (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can other editors look at the refs in this diff and indicate whether they think they meet WP:RS for purposes of this BLP? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases from the documentary producer are not "best evidence". Wikipedia says that we should prefer a secondary source for what is in the documentary, or (for precise claims) a transcript of the documentary. Because this is a "contentious claim about a living person", we should err on the side of caution, and require very strong sourcing. Collect (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Owen

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

We could use some input on this article. We have an IP who is insisting because one person referred to this actor as Clive Warren that "He is sometimes called Clive Warren" and that fact should be included in the lede. If in you examination of this you feel that the info is notable just leave a note here and I will accept your judgement(s) on the matter. Thanks in advance for your time in looking at this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not notable or anything we should mention in the article. Once by one person is not "sometimes called/mistaken for" (even if somebody else mentions that occurrence). Plus that person may've been joking anyway. If you want a rationale page to point to, WP:WELLKNOWN or WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE‎ probably suffice.-92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When does something become notable? This was not just a passing conversation between three people, this was the subject of a podcast and then adapted into an episode of a television show (Titled "Clive Warren" and also mentioned on the Rebecca De Mornay Wikipedia page. Many people spent time putting this show together outside of the three people discussing "Clive Warren." I would not put the subject of a simple conversation into Wikipedia. If information like "Clive Owen likes a particular band and went to their concert a couple times" is notable then how is "Another British entertainer (a notable one, I am sure) devoting a whole television episode to this subject" not notable? Perhaps my placement of this information was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.132.184.130 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, a thing becomes notable through being covered by multiple independent reliable-sources. An example is Joe the Plumber. The information you give is different from what you said before: "Not a joke, he was mistaken for Clive Warren. This is a fact". It's a single podcast–television show, with variations for each medium. As far as I can see, it amounts to a single comedian bouncing off his straight man (or two). It does appear to be a joke not a mistake, since it's hard to believe the show aired before anyone involved discovered the mixup. The De Mornay page does have it yes, with a citation needed tag. If something like this was included, it would be in a cultural references section or perhaps recognition section. It wouldn't be in the lead. A lead covers the article's main points, and this isn't key to understanding the subject. Your new information that the name of the show was "Clive Warren", and it was the central or overriding focus of the show rather than addressed by one skit or passing mention, does alter its significance slightly. Although in my view it's not at all essential to the article, a mention may be okay. However, it wouldn't be a mention in the lead or present as fact that he's mistaken for Warren, sometimes or otherwise. Inclusion would be down to editorial discretion, and consensus among editors of the page. I don't have a strong opinion; I'll ask MarnetteD to return to this thread. We include stuff like his musical tastes in the Personal life section to address who the subject is as a person, to provide a more rounded biography. Try not to take disagreement over article content personally by the way, it's not a personal criticism. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

207 please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as it is a good place to learn that just because one "item" is in an article it doesn't mean that others belong. Having said that a brief - well sourced - mention in the body of the article might be possible. I will warn you though that this feels like a "pop culture" item to me and you may find that other editors will remove it as such. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just noticed 207's attempt to remove this thread here [30] I would suggest that you not do that kind of thing in the future 207. It does tend to leave other editors with the impression that you are acting in "bad faith". Such actions do not help in any editing that you are trying to pursue. MarnetteD | Talk 20:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alive (1993 film)

Several months ago I tried to correctly edit the cast sub-section of this film, but was informed that my edits were unsubstantiated, despite the fact that on a Wikipedia page of the actor in dispute (Miguel Ferrer) confirms my original edit. Under the page for this film, Alive, you have John Malchovich listed as the Narrator (Uncredited) On the wiki page for Miguel Ferrer, he is listed as the uncredited narrator of this film (See filmography" Both articles cannot be true; one has to be wrong. According to the DVD that I just watched, it is in fact, Miguel Ferrer who was the uncredited narrator--NOT John Malchovich. The fact that the IMDB also lists John Malchovich as the narrator, just shows that their source is not an accurate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytimeistoday (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Malkovich. See this issue of the Film Journal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Jolley

I am Stan Jolley's son-in-law. I have tried twice to correct and add information to the Wikipedia profile on Stan Jolley. This includes information about his death on 6/4/12 and additions to his credits in the film industry. User "Lugnuts" has twice reverted my work. I believe he is calling for citations. I and my wife, Stan's heir, are the source regarding his death. We have not published his obituary yet. As for his film credits, he supplied them to me on paper - the same credits he supplied IMDB and are published there. I noted that on my revision, but Lugnuts chose to ignore and change the bio back. Since Stan Jolley is the source on himself, and I am the source for info on his passing, how is this a violation of the terms regarding biographys? How can I get my work put back permanently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaisen (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we appreciate that you want to help us get his credits correct, information on Wikipedia should be cited to a published Reliable Source (RS) available to the public (books, magazines, newspapers, and websites) that have 1) editorial oversight and 2) a deserved reputation for fact checking, not personal observations and recollections (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources) Since you know the correct information, you could find and provide a RS that gets it correct (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Neither IMDb, nor Wikipedia itself, for that matter, are acceptable as reliable sources. Since you've identified your nearness to the subject (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), if you are able to cite published references, you should consider posting them on the article's talk page so that an unbiased editor can add the material. Dru of Id (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on Blaisen's talkpage, but had no reply. Surely this would have some coverage in the local press? Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vint Cerf

Resolved

He is now listed as British computer scientist not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.33.59 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed, all reliable references show that he was born in New Haven Conneticut. NO sources were shown or added in to say otherwise. I've also left a note on the page of the individual that made the change. The name of the place is....-Babylon-5-> 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Jean Morton
Jean Morton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jean Morton returned to the UK a few years ago. She died on May 26th, 2012, aged 91, in Beechfield Nursing Home, Lichfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.107.214 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- those details are not returning any search engine results for me - do you have a link to anything that supports your claim? Youreallycan 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Sherlock
Seán Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has IPs adding a table of expenses [31] for the person - relying entirely on a primary source, and without trying for discussion thereon. Collect (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles been semi protected - the opinionated undue conflicted user from the IP - 176.61.61.99 - this was his first wiki edit - I support blocking him/the IP address indefinitely, it appears to be static - Youreallycan 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Greene activist
Patrick Greene (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Patrick Greene. I am the "activist" that the article is all about. First of all I am not a Christian anymore. Second, I was never an officer in the Air Force. I was an enlisted man for 8 1/2 years. From 1968-77. Third, I never filed any lawsuit against Henderson County. Forth, the rally had nothing to do with me. I didn't even know about the Nativity scene issue until after the rally. You spelled Jessica Crye's name wrong. Lastly I would like to know who put in all the information about me, considering a lot of it is wrong. Please forward my email address to that person, so I can set them straight about me.
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.150.125 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are to be based on reliable secondary sources per the policy set out in WP:RS. I checked the references cited in the article about legal proceedings and Henderson County and saw that the sources actually say that legal proceedings were threatened, not instituted. So I made that change. I saw that the mention of Patrick Greene being a former air force officer is taken from a blog, not necessarily a reliable secondary source, so I removed that language. I did not find a reference to Patrick Greene being an enlisted man so I did not add that information. I did not see any sources saying Patrick Greene is no longer a christian so I did not add that information to the article. Perhaps you are aware of some sources on this topic. You could look at WP:BLP regarding dealing with articles written about oneself. Several editors contributed to the article and the topics they discuss appear to be found in the references listed after the article. The editors are listed under "View History" at the top of the article page. You could leave messages for them on their User Talk pages or on the article talk page. There has not been activity on the article talk page so the editors might not find your comments there. All the best.Coaster92 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthanna Hopper
Ruthanna Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It has been brought to my attention that my biography (Ruthanna Hopper) on Wikipedia is not accurate. If there is an editor who can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. The edit is fairly simple. I co-wrote two novels, "Celebutantes" in 2008, a New York Times bestseller and "Beneath A Starlet Sky", published in 2011. http://us.macmillan.com/beneathastarletsky/AmandaGoldberg I've tried to make the changes myself but have been unsuccessful. The biography has my occupation listed as an actress and film producer, which is not accurate. I've made some appearances in movies but I am an author. I would greatly appreciate some assistance on this. Thank you!
Best, Ruthanna Hopper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childofthe60s (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I've expanded it slightly, too. As the article is short (although it's longer than it was), I didn't change "Filmography" to "Bibliography" and separate it into 'writing' and 'film and television' credits, since the novels are covered immediately above. It does, however, now better reflect your current occupation. I noticed it doesn't have a picture; if you wish to submit one in the future, this page will be helpful. Thank you for reporting the concerns. Best, 92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A plea from Jimbo Wales and me
NXIVM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Plea, where JW would have me bring this matter to you. He has, see the talk page of the articles in question and the JW talk page archives, seems to express concern that this is an important and difficult issue in need of the attention of informed BLP editors. What should we do? Let me know if you would like me to repeat this plea again here or whether, as I would hope, this word to the wise is enough. Chrisrus (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Hoskins
Bob Hoskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PLEASE ADD THE FILM "THE HOUSE THAT MARY BUILT" TO HIS CREDIT. JUST WATCHED IT ON T.V. COULD NOT FIND THE FILM ANYWHERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.4 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence Bob Hoskins ever worked on a film of that name. There's a 1995 TV movie called "The House That Mary Bought", possibly based on Tim Wynne-Jones' novel Odd's End and possibly also known as "The House That Mary Built". But Bob Hoskins had no involvement in it. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Bosley
Catherine Bosley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Once again, someone's added a separate section with an apparently well known "wardrobe malfunction" type incident, without inline citations. See here for previous discussion of this on this noticeboard.
The IP concerned seems well intentioned, but I've reverted them here because I don't have time to sift through all the news reports and work out what exactly is due weight for this and exactly which facts can be sourced properly.
If anyone has time to add a brief, properly sourced, and appropriate weight mention of this to the article, that would be great. If not, it may need another year's semi-protection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm Gladwell
Malcolm Gladwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A bit of an argument going on at Talk:Malcolm_Gladwell#.27Blatant_corruption.27 over a continuing edit war -- I think that the section title suggests what it's about. Rather to my surprise, there are now experienced editors on both sides of the argument. Oh well ... let's have a few more experienced editors, and then perhaps the matter will be settled, one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ponnala Lakshmaiah
Ponnala Lakshmaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone take a look at this one, it needs editing with a chainsaw. Section headings like As Icon of Inspiration, Man OF Integrity & Passion, Life of the Sparkling Star show where the BLP issue lies. This is an article about a politician, so some COI editing seems to be going on. 109.77.113.165 (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed one of the most hilarious bios I've seen. Reduce to two or so sourced sentences, or send to AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Lintott
Chris Lintott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this; the wikipedia page dealing with me shows an out of date affiliation and job title which is causing problems. I've posted a note on the relevant talk page (Talk:Chris Lintott) but would appreciate it if someone could make the update or let me know if more information is needed. Thanks Chrislintott (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Jones (writer)
Owen Jones (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone re-adding childish vandalism after I reverted. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action, but it's still going on. Could someone semi-protect the page, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
coleen nolan
Coleen Nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article contains paragraph "In January 2007, Nolan courted further controversy when, during a debate on Loose Women about gay adoption, she stated her opinion that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children,[27] and said that "there's only so much I want to accept".[12]. There are NO sources for this. The sources cited are false pages, but I have been warned by Wikipedia for trying to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.179.73 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Took it out. Sources do not appear to support it, and a search of stonewall and the mirror websites dont come up with anything. Her stuff on the mirror appears to directly contradict it, being positive towards gay couples with children. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Thomson Affair
I have discovered that this borderline attack page on a Member of Parliament (under voluntary suspension from the Australian Labor Party) is being edited by at least one member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Thus there is a huge WP:COI. WP:BLP is being totally ignored; unreliable sources which border on the edge of defamation (under Australian law) are being cited and then added to the Wikipedia article in a libelous manner. Please also note that the staff of the Liberal Party of Australia have been involved in the malicious editing of Wikipedia before, when they held government. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessarily a WP:COI for a member of one political party to edit an article concerning a member of another. It is quite possible for editors to put their own political (and other) views aside and write neutrally. The best advice is to look calmly at the sources and writing to make sure that they are reliable and being approached neutrally, taking into account the whole of the article. Seeking to use an editor's affiliations as a way of attacking their edits is certainly deprecated, and I doubt that a five year old news story has much direct relevance here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Stanton
Gregory Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A BLP issue has been raised re Gregory Stanton article in a DRN post. Libel has been asserted. Any help from BLP experts would be appreciated. Please post any comments at the DRN page, not here, to keep the discussion centralized. --Noleander (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content is currently out of the article. I had a look and it did seem a bit undue and seemed according to the bit I have seen so far, to assert more than the Washington post article - now only available though purchase via Proquest Archiver did about his job loss. I might err on not bothering to report it from a BLP standpoint, mostly for reasons of it not being widely reported and we should avoid becoming the primary vehicle for such content about living people.but if a consensus arises to report it it needs a better write than was there. He was over prescribed medicine and due to that was acting out of character, ended up getting a suspended sentence and compensating the store owner - libel is alleged in the portray of the previous write up - mostly appertaining to the statement that the subject left his employment due to the incident. As a possible write to cover the incident/if there is consensus to report the incident - In 1998 Stanton was convicted of malicious wounding and destruction of property after an incident with a shop owner and driving through his shop window. Stanton's behavior was reportedly due to over prescribed medication. Stanton compensated the shop owner and received a suspended jail sentence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/29990328.html?dids=29990328:29990328&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+06%2C+1998&author=Wendy+Melillo&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Jail+Time+Suspended+In+Video+Store+Attack%3B+McLean+Man+to+Do+Community+Service&pqatl=google|title=Jail Time Suspended In Video Store Attack; McLean Man to Do Community Service|publisher=The Washington Post - via Proquest Archiver|date=June 6, 1998|accessdate=June 8, 2012}}</ref> - Youreallycan 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi
Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is no source and no evidence for these two sentences under Sport: "He is also the owner of 12 thouroughbred race horses and is seen as potentially the richest man in sport. He has also looked into accquiring numerous football clubs around the world, including PSG and Juventus."
Under Wikipedia rules, they should be removed immediately and the section on Sport is thus redundant until verified material can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPTPPR (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Warren (Talk page comments)
I'm concerned about what I see as BLP violations on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. It may be though that I'm being oversensitive, so I'm seeking outside opinion, Within this section Talk:Elizabeth_Warren#Undue_Weight_and_Coatrack_in_Senate_run_section. we have the use of pejoritive terms that have been used by certian opinion columnists. i.e. "Liawatha". I feel these should be redacted and not repeated unless it's specifically about a suggested inclusion. My opinion has been disputed by a 3rd editor.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)edited to fix spelling error pointed out by 24dot[reply]
I edit-conflicted with you at Talk:Elizabeth Warren in leaving this warning. The upshot is that there's a line between a serious discussion of reliably sourced criticism on one hand, and abusing an article talk page as a platform to vent one's personal animosity and contempt for the article subject on the other. That line is repeatedly being crossed on Talk:Elizabeth Warren.
I've elected to leave a general reminder as a start, but would welcome some outside administrative opinions. I think this page is likely to be sort of a test case for how we handle high-profile political biographies, and politically motivated editing and commentary, in an election season. Hopefully things will be smoother than in 2008. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not introduce the so-called "perjoritive" [sic], but I opined in the thread[32] that the Wikipedia editor who did use it was merely repeating what nationally-syndicated columnist George Will calls an 'earned sobriquet'. The editor who mentioned "Liawatha" (get it, Liar watha–Hiawatha) did so in Talk space and was obviously paraphrasing from a wide variety of source commentary; George Will explicitly used the terms "kerfuffle", "blond", and "victimhood". I both quoted from and linked to the source (again, here) before this complaint was created here. No one is arguing that WP:BLP isn't a great guideline, but it seems obvious that an editor is allowed to quote and paraphrase sources without other editors ~~threatening him~~ making an issue of it. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lieawatha has an "e", you know. I can see the logic of either spelling, but the reality is that most columnists are inserting the e (google compare).
I hope that wasn't the spelling error you "fixed"! 66.105.218.38 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nazima
Nazima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nazima is still alive and she lives in Mumbai with her family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.204.19 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thanks for the report - I have removed the death claim - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_old_Hindi_film_actress_nazima - is not a WP:RS for a death claim/or anything else for that matter. - Youreallycan
Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber
Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi Everyone,
Sorry to have to stick this back on here seeing that it has been here just last week. It was generally agreed at the time that a number of SPA's had been involved in editing the page making it look more and more like an attack page.
The article was cleaned up with collective effort to an acceptable standard albeit short.
It now looks like another SPA has been created smearing negative remarks all over the page.
Sources are used in some places (Under the France) section, referring to court proceedings, the article referenced is from the 13th of April, the actual court hearing was not until the 17th and the outcome was indeed very different from the source quoted.
If you google the individual and his companies it becomes clear that they have restructured their business and that there has been a number of redundancies in the last year, to me it looks like disgruntled individuals are using wikipedia as a means of "getting even" in this individual and his companies.
It was suggested at one point that the page was to be semi-protected for a short while. Would it not be a good idea to clean it up again, and semi-protect it until SPA's loose interest in this article? I would be quite happy to chip in when it comes to this, but it feels a bit like we're swimming upstream as every time something is cleaned up it is undone. Sweboi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike James
I do not think this article should be deleted, but it needs some major work. NPOV is definitely in question here, as well as some serious citation issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js sherlock (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 628: / Line 628: @@
 ::I did not introduce the so-called "perjoritive" ''[sic]'', but I opined in the thread[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElizabeth_Warren&diff=496627035&oldid=496624444] that the Wikipedia editor who did use it was merely repeating what nationally-syndicated columnist [[George Will]] calls an 'earned [[sobriquet]]'. The editor who mentioned "Liawatha" (get it, [[wikt:liar#Noun|Liar]]{{nbsp}}watha{{ndash}}[[Hiawatha]]) did so in Talk space and was ''obviously'' paraphrasing from a wide variety of source commentary; [[George Will]] explicitly used the terms "kerfuffle", "blond", and "victimhood". I both quoted from and linked to the source (again, [http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20120524/GPG0706/205240502/George-Will-column-Warren-strikes-chord-liberals here]) before this complaint was created here. No one is arguing that [[WP:BLP]] isn't a great guideline, but it seems obvious that an editor is allowed to quote and paraphrase sources without other editors <s>threatening him</s> making an issue of it. --<font style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:24dot|→gab]]<span style="border:2px solid black;">&nbsp;'''<span style='color:green'>[[User:24dot|24<big>dot</big>]]</span>'''&nbsp;</span>[[Special:Contributions/24dot|grab←]]</font> 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
-Lieawatha has an "e", you know.  I can see the logic of either spelling, but the reality is that most columnists are inserting the e (try google).
+Lieawatha has an "e", you know.  I can see the logic of either spelling, but the reality is that most columnists are inserting the e (google compare).
-I hope that wasn't the spelling error you "corrected"....  [[Special:Contributions/66.105.218.38|66.105.218.38]] ([[User talk:66.105.218.38|talk]]) 20:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
+I hope that wasn't the spelling error you "fixed"! [[Special:Contributions/66.105.218.38|66.105.218.38]] ([[User talk:66.105.218.38|talk]]) 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 == Nazima ==

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