Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Tom Emmer

Only campaign approved literature is being allowed in this article. Opposing viewpoints, even well cited ones are being deleted by an operative of the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.179 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Campaign material is being used for his political positions. Allegations that information is being deleted by an "operative" are without any justification. This editor is also edit-waring on the page. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Other well cited posts have been deleted and rerouted to keep this article campaign friendly. That is censorship and has been reported to the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.76.179 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you join the discussion rather than make pointless threats? That article is a WP:BLP, which you should read since you obviously found this page. As for the censorship, there is plenty of bad stuff about Emmer in that page, I am not sure what you feel is being censored. Arzel (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. 75.72.76.179, edits on the Tom Emmer article like this, blanking the page, leaving only a cleanup template, are completely unacceptable vandalism. Edits like this and this will of course be reverted. You don't do yourself any favors with those edits and may be blocked for them. Your most defensible edit, this one, could be fixed if you replaced "lyrics" with "radio interview", but you are burning bridges. I'm going to re-read the article and see if it deserves a POV tag now. -Colfer2 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been a problem. At points, Arzel, you've argued that mentioning his drunk driving incidents was motivated by "political purposes" (rather than a full accounting of past criminal activity closely linked to later legislation) and have changed contextual text around quotes so as to misrepresent the utterance itself. ThtrWrtr (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They were motivated by political purposes. That issue was broght forward by someone in his opponents camp. The connection between the two issues are also being made for political purposes. I would ask you also to be careful about making statements of criminal activity, or imply that they were closely related to other legislation, this is a BLP remember, not a place to promote a political point of view. Opinion is not fact, and we have to be careful not to confuse the two. Arzel (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Tom Emmer's political opponents might mention his history of drunk driving partly in pursuit of their political goals. However, we mention it in his WP entry because it's a series of criminal offenses by a candidate for public office. Those supporting Mr. Emmer in his drive for office might not like the way or reason in which the decades-old misdeeds migrated into public consciousness, but the offenses are, to my mind, clearly germane to his biography. As to their being mentioned alongside his later legislative activities in regard to driving while impaired, editors on WP didn't make the linkage; reporters and public officials elsewhere did. One article in the references from the Star Trib is even entitled "Sponsor of DWI change has 2-ticket DWI record." Another ST article ("Emmer, MIA on DWI vote, ignites criticism") mentioned Rep. Emmer's past drunk driving when he missed a vote to toughen consequences for DWI. His convictions and his legislation, though not necessarily causally linked, live together in independent coverage by the secondary sources that undergird the Emmer WP entry. The article simply reflects its sources. ThtrWrtr (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the ST is very liberal and always supports the democratic candidate it is really no suprise that they have pushed it as well. It is also no suprise that they have been hesitant to publish any stories that defend Emmer against false attacks that even FactCheck has stated. Point is, this is a BLP, not a political page. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, those kind of assertions leave us nowhere. The Star Trib is a valid source of media reference, as is the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal. You may have your personal opinions of the paper's orientation, but the largest paper of record in Rep. Emmer's home state clearly is a notable well for news. One can't suggest that valid, widely read, mainstream sources not be followed simply because one (or others of similar political persuasion) personally detects a certain bent to the coverage. It's not the Daily Kos, for Pete's sake. In fact, didn't the ST endorse Coleman over Franken in MN's '08 senatorial race? (And if memory serves, your argument for including Rep. Emmer's age at his first arrest was that the ST had also done so.) Frankly, I'm a bit concerned that nearly every one of your edits, here and elsewhere, appears geared to favor conservative candidates, causes, and organizations. Why on earth WOULDN'T one want to note that a candidate re-writing drunk-driving legislation has a history of drunk driving? It's nothing like the linkage problem occurring with MN Forward. The problem would begin to creep in were one to write, for example, "Rep. Emmer's proposed law would lessen the very penalties he faced in 1981." ThtrWrtr (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed most of the article, except the drunk driving section. I did not add a POV tag but I did put a lot of context around a paragraph about the Target-funded ad and the gay rights response, a national story at this point. The paragraph seemed to have been pared down to nothing, just, "there was an ad, and a bunch of companies" (that's not a direct a quote!).

It might be a good time for us to read WP:WELLKNOWN, the BLP section about public figures. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Indelicato

[ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Anurag Dikshit

Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

• Joproffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new single purpose account
• JamesmaharrisonPRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - second/sockpuppet account
• 62.49.31.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP address of same user

Tolkien family

The article has been protected for two weeks because of an edit war over BLP data of Royd Tolkien (whose name was changed to "Baker" in the article by an IP in 2009) and a certain Christopher Carrie. The issue is about the mentioning of a court case Christopher Carrie vs Royd Tolkien which Carrie lost [1]. A look at the edit history of the article shows several edits by and IP calling a link to www.poynter.org inaccurate and then another IP adding a lifetime (1946-2010) to the name Christopher Carrie. In April 2010, User:Ddgrant and User:Solicitr had a discussion on the article talk page about allegedly untrue statements about an earlier criminal history of Carrie. Recently now a User:Christopher Carrie has turned up and engaged in removing any reference to that name from the article, calling the sources given "bogus" and threatening R. Tolkien to be sued again if his helpers would edit the article again: [2].

Apart from that court case which was called a precedent in the article and has made it to certain law blogs and law news websites, Royd being the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, and a cameo appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the section did not say anything about Royd Tolkien's notability and importance as of this edit. That is maybe why User:EdJohnston proposed to omit the entire section. It turns out though that he is in the film producing business, e.g. Pimp (film) and another 2010 movie "Tontine Massacre", and also plays a role in Pimp [3]. He also has his own literary agency.

For the record, I have reverted two of User:Christopher Carrie's deletions because his arguments seemed to be biased and I would even regard him as an SPA. It has also been speculated at AN3 that he is a sock of Ddgrant. I have moreover notified Solicitr but all in all I had no idea of this recent edit war until 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that I'm with EdJohnston. Your edit here was well-intentioned, but based upon a superficial analysis that a SPA was edit-warring, and wrong. Much as it displeases me, I find myself in agreement over article content with a edit-warring sock-puppetting (more on which later) legal-threatening single-purpose account.

  I agree absolutely with this limited removal of content. The accusation of blackmail is poorly sourced, and the identification of the person is an unacceptable inference being made by Wikipedia editors firsthand, based upon nothing but the existence of a name in a listing. Our content policies prohibit both. They also prohibit the subtle threats that you observed. I agree with this more extensive removal of content in that this is not discussed in sources as anything to do with either parties to the action, but as a source of subtle change in English libel law. If anything, discussion of this lawsuit belongs in its proper context in articles on English defamation law. It is not biographical to either party. But it is a point of English law that has been discussed by Lilian Edwards, a professor of Law, as such. I have no disagreement (and indeed no opinion) over that section up to the point of the word "Osgiliath", although I strongly suggest that sources be found to support all of it before any effort is made to restore it.

  As to sockpuppetry, even if it weren't explicitly stated in the court decision that M. Carrie logs in under pseudonyms and assumes personae, it's fairly clear that there's sockpuppetry here. I hold Ddgrant (talk · contribs) and Ddgrant2010 (talk · contribs) to be sockpuppets on their face, and have revoked the latter account's editing privileges. (One account only in a dispute, people!) Given that it is reliably sourcable that M. Carrie lives/lived in Solihull, it's also fairly clear to me, from behavioural and geolocation evidence, that 81.86.100.254 (talk · contribs), 86.129.65.231 (talk · contribs), 82.46.191.221 (talk · contribs), and Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs) are all one single person. There's no overlap in edit times, the IP addresses are all parts of dynamically-assigned blocks for ISPs, and since it is plausible that this person will use the named account only from now on, I have taken no action there, although any further progress down the road of threatening legal action, or use of multiple accounts and IP addresses in the future, will of course lead to revocation of editing privileges by me or another administrator. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I agree with you that the lawsuit does not belong into a biographical overview, it may be added to English defamation law though. So I suggest the following for the article "Tolkien family":

1. We restore the name "Royd Tolkien" per the court record, IMDB and his official website. But let's mention "Baker" too, as his (unsourced) entry at Tolkien Gateway explains how he usually uses his mother's surname instead of his birth bame Baker [4].
2. Restoration of the section until "Osgiliath"; the appearance in the film is sourced by IMDB.
3. We add Royd Tolkien's other business activities, such as acting in and producing films plus being a literary agent. The combination of all this asserts notability — if not for a standalone article at least for this section.

De728631 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with De728631 - I think this is an efficient solution. Furthermore I think further discussion re the notability of the court ruling is one for others - perhaps for the English defamation law and related talk pages? isfutile:P (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied here from the article's talk page:

The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you (and of course anyone else interested) work up some properly sourced and neutral text for that section on the article's talk page. Leave out the court case entirely and concentrate on the stuff that, apparently, has been swept along for the ride. EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will happily put it into the article. But while we're dealing with this issue, let's set the bar high, and ensure that the content that we put in is up to Wikipedia standards. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

• It is not for us to decide on matters of opinion here. The task in hand is to produce an encyclopaedia article which meets notability guidelines and includes factual text backed by verifiable sources. Unsourced assertions are not relevant here - verifiable sources are needed to provide the basis of any new material. isfutile:P (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed

• As stated, that assertion would need to be sourced to be termed a fact - that is rather the point. As Uncle G pointed out we are seeking to set the bar high on this page. isfutile:P (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing notable about the court case, or indeed the entire contretemps of Royd v. Carrie. I don't think Royd's section need include anything more than what is currently there.

--Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It was in strict terms of accuracy Christopher Carrie V Royd Tolkien. --Christopher Carrie (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• OTOH (opening an even bigger can of worms) the page long ago had its section on John Tolkien removed; and Fr John is I'm afraid within notability not only as co-author of a book, but precisely because of Carrie's accusations, which were headline news at the time. But how to handle this in an evenhanded way, and not open up Carrie's edit wars again? --Solicitr (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Diffs, please. I'm failing to find another removed section in the article's edit history. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

The article has long referenced Clinton's (now current) father-in-law. It mentioned that he is a former Democratic Congressman. He was also convicted of 31 counts of fraud and served a lengthy federal prison sentence - a reference I added. References to the conviction have repeatedly been stricken, while the congressional service and party affiliation reference remain. I believe "former Democratic congressman and convicted felon" would be an appropriate reference. Otherwise... Just mention his name and let people follow the link to learn more. It isn't fair to list one historical credential and not the other. ... and the conviction is probably more historically interesting.

John2510 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about Chelsea Clinton first of all, we should not publish any negative details for other persons named in the article, unless that is their only reason for notability. The conviction of Edward Mezvinsky is explained in his article and that's where it belongs. There's nothing unfair about that but it's about good measure and about concentrating on the main topic of an article. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should just link to his name, with no further reference? ... or is there an actual policy of not publishing negatives unless that is their only notability? That would seem IMHO to be a poor policy. There needs to be fairness and balance. John2510 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. The guys page's lead is also weighted towards the fraud disproportionately. Can some people here watchlist Edward_Mezvinsky as well as Chelsea's page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict..Adding the criminal convictions of her father in law is clear coat-racking and unless the subject of the articles notability is related to the crimes they should clearly not be added, those crime details belong on his article alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Things will probably die down in a few days. Chelsea isn't that big of a celeb any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I made it a straight reference to the father-in-law's name (which is linked). I think that restores balance and neutrality. I don't think we're in the business of "only saying the good things" about a reference. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No we're not John but the fact that the person is or was involved in politics is a related notability and could happily stay in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Any "related notability" is insignficiant. It's certainly more historically signficant that the daughter of a President has married the son of a convicted felon. Still... balance and neutrality are maintained by leaving out both positive and negative references. John2510 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is against your POV John and it has been replaced, please do not edit war over the article and use discussion to seek support for your claims, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The negative info is in the guys article. People can read it there. Whether it's a COATRACK or not is an editorial decision, and the two uninvolved editors here feel that it is. Maybe someone will have another opinion here, but I doubt it. We err on the side of caution with BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on WP:Coatrack suggests seeking a balance of what a reader would consider notable about the person. Mentioning his congressional service, without mentioning his prison time is itself coatracking. Mainstream media articles see his felony conviction as having significance on par this his legislative office (e.g.: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/meet-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-fiance/). I'm only seeking balance and fairness here in what's notable about him. Two (or ten) other editors who want to avoid "negative info" about the in-laws, while including the positive, doesn't make it right. John2510 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, including some references because they're positive and omitting others because they're negative clearly violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For clarification... are you telling me NOT to engage in further discussion on this? If so... Wow. John2510 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We are asking you to not restore your version of the article and we furthermore DO ask you to continue this discussion. Please see WP:Edit war for the term Off2riob was referring to. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me for not making that clear and thanks to you De728631 for the clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510 does have a point: NPOV demands we include both or neither, and if BLP requires that we avoid mentioning sourced negative material in an article that he's only tangentially involved in, then that means the positive stuff goes as well. As I read it, the bare link is the best way to meet both BLP and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no objections to this position, its a bit pointy though. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"NPOV demands we include both or neither" No it does not. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." from WP:NPOV. As cited, mainstream media seem to consider the fraud conviction as relevent as the congressional history. Further, the congressional reference appears to be an inappropriate attempt at aggrandizement through choice of spouse/breeding. John2510 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

←As I pointed out on the article talk page, "Democratic congressman" is merely an identifier, and many would say not necessarily a positive one - and the reason he has his own bluelinked biography here which is the appropriate place for details of his life. This article is about Chelsea Clinton - it's not the place for going into her father-in-law's past history (or accusations against her own parents, or her uncle's conviction, by the way), but to leave off the main reason for Ed Mezvinsky's own notability - the clear lead of his own article - is a POV decision, in my view. And someone's characterization of Mezvinsky in a recent edit of Chelsea's biography as a "fraudster" I believe illustrates that this is not neutral editing.Tvoz/talk 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Think this logic is correct. If her father-in-law is notable, we give the reason for his notability, not other pointy biographical details unless they are also directly relevant to the biography of the subject of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this is an NPOV issueat all. Aside from the fact that, to many Americans, being identified as a member of Congress is not exactly positive, we're talking about relatively neutral, identifying information relating to the subject's main basis for notability. We haven't required, and shouldn't require, that the articles on David Eisenhower and Edward F. Cox mention that their father-in-law resigned the presidency in disgrace, or that he in effect admitted criminal behavior by accepting a presidential pardon. The article on Rand Paul similarly identifies his father as a congressman, but mentions no criticisms of him. This line of argument leads to absurd results; must the article on Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky include references to Bill Clinton's impeachment or the suspension of his law license simply because it identifies her son's father-in-law as a former President? Including references to the negative information about certain members in the Bush clan in articles on other members would be a full-time job. Must the article on Patrick J. Kennedy mention Chappaquiddick because it refers to his father's political career? Does the fact that the article on Prince William of Wales mentions his mother's charitable activities also require that it be balanced by Tina Brown's characterization of her as a ""spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "merely an identifier." His name is merely an identifier. Mentioning his status as a former congressman has judgmental implications. If you reject that... then "convicted felon" is merely an identifier as well. As I said, I'm okay with dropping both and letting his name identify him. John2510 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Take a look at WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE sometime if you want to understand why. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them. What do you think they say that makes my statement "nonsense?" John2510 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You've making a false equivalency, and ignoring both BLP and UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's asking you to explain your view of why they apply. Telling him he's ignoring them in light of such a request isn't a helpful addition to the dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe he's doing so from reading each and every comment he's made on this issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What he said I'm doing... is what I'm doing. Citing acronyms and being dismissive isn't engaging in discussiona and dialog on the topic. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, the editors above have taken the time to explain things to you, an editor with very little apparent experience at editing Wikipedia. Could you please spend some time and try to understand what they are saying, rather than repeatedly advancing the same arguments. Otherwise, you'll start to look like a disruptive, single-purpose account, and those situations usually don't end very well. Best regards, and I hope you hang around and do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, In my experience, condescension only tends to inflame conflicts. If you'd care to participate in the substance of the discussion, that would be great. Regards. John2510 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You quoted on my talk page (which I appreciate), "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My post on the conviction appears to me to be at least reasonably weighted with his congressional service. News reports on the wedding (as cited above) seem to support that. Do people have an argument to the contrary? Similarly, my post seems to meet the three elements of BLP you cite: 1) neutrality; 2) verifiability; and 3) not original research.

The answer to the "Undue Weight" and "Coatracking" alleagations is found in an honest answer to the following: Which is more noteworthy to the average reader? - "President's daughter marries son of former congressman" or "President's daughter marries son of convicted felon, just out of federal prison." The former appears to be purely an attempt at aggrandizing the subject through her choice of mate, while the latter is ironic and unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The question might instead be which appears more noteworthy to reliable sources writing on the topic of C Clinton's wedding? --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if we were writing an article about the wedding, but even then BLP would trump NPOV. Of course, we're not writing an article about the wedding, so we're not going to pretend otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage, then. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Same answer. The article is about Clinton. It doesn't even have a sub-section about her wedding or marriage. It has one sentence about her marriage. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so our source for that one sentence should be reliable sources writing about her marriage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/sunday/main6733650.shtml. Wait... crap - it mentions the fraud conviction. Maybe we should keep looking until we find one that fits our biases better? John2510 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources. Plural. And its also not about what the sources mention, it's about how they describe the father in law. If "congressman and fraudster" is a common formulation, then I concede. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the article: "The groom is the son of two former Members of Congress, one of whom, Ed Mezvinsky, served time for fraud." That's the first one that came up when I Googled "Chelsea fraud." There are many others. John2510 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that John2510's only current editing interest seems to be arguing about this point to be deeply unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the redaction of FormerIP's comments on this page is necessary. Although there is disagreement as to whether Mr. Mezvinski's conviction should be prominently mentioned in discussing Chelsea Clinton's marriage, the fact of such conviction is undisputed, it is reported in his own article here on Wikipedia, and I don't see how we can discuss whether or not to include it in the Clinton article without at least mentioning it in passing here. In other words, while the letter and spirit of the BLP policy apply in all namespaces, this is not the type of unsourced, negative speculation or libel that it would be inappropriate to mention on a discussion page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was already identified as an inappropriate characterization (1 August 2010 (UTC)), and no source has been provided demonstrating otherwise. The discussion has moved well into WP:POINT. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the allegation of WP:POINT, I think it's notworthy that I created the discussion here to avoid an edit and disruption in the page itself - which currently contains the edit I dispute. I'm hoping for a fair resolution. The "inappropriate characterization" allegations are not valid, for the reasons stated. John2510 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Identified by what authority? Go away. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to Ronz) I agree with you that including this characterization in Chelsea Clinton is probably not desirable. My point is just that given all the discussion above, I don't see redacting the term as necessary or helpful on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove the BLP violation again, despite BLP requiring us to do so. I will request the editor be blocked if he makes another such violation. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please identify how you believe my edits (adding the reference to the conviction or achieving neutrality by simply linking to the name) constitute a BLP violation. John2510 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, as you observed, you initated the discussion here to seek input on this issue. The consensus seems to be strongly against your view. I suggest that you drop the matter, as your interest in it is clearly disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I tell my friends that Wikipedia isn't just a vote of what people want to see. I'd like to think I'm right... but maybe not. John2510 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No general conclusions should be drawn from the fact that consensus is against you in one instance. I've been editing here for a long time, and I certainly wouldn't have lasted or been very happy here if I'd taken it personally every time people disagreed with one of my edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John, regardless of the rightness of your arguments, admins here are quick to intervene (or trigger happy if you must) when it comes to BLP issues (or even just perceived BLP issues). At this point, enough editors have disagreed with your interpretation of our "rules", that you are risking being sanctioned. Almost everything we decide on is a grey area, and there is no supreme court (other than the one that Newyorkbrad actually is a part of, since you may not know), so being right when a bunch of other editors disagree is the same thing as being wrong. So, decide if being right is worth being blocked, in which case perform more reverts. Or, continue this discussion, and you may convince some people, although I doubt it. I have no grudge against you, so I just want to tell you what I've seen, and a likely outcome. I say this, because a bad experience early in ones career frequently causes editors to leave and never come back, and I want you to stay. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I initiated discussion on this at an early stage, and haven't reverted since the contentiousness of this subject became apparent. My edits to seek neutrality have been removed. If I risk sanction by even discussing the subject, then so be it. Several of you seem to be attempting to make the point with me that I should defer to your experience in the absence of reason. I've been here long enough to know that sort of elitism isn't appropriate here. John2510 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What other accounts, if any, were you using during that lengthy time? (Your current account has fewer than 100 edits.) You risk being sanctioned because you have carried on the discussion way beyond it's useful end. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a truly pathetic debate. More than any other Wikipedia policy or principle, one might hope that editorial discretion and at least a minimal measure of sensitivity or compassion might prevail. Apparently not so. This article is about Chelsea Clinton, not the skeletons in the family tree of the man she married. Good Lord. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Though she may become President some day, she really hasn't done anything noteworthy in her own right yet, so the article naturally focuses on her familial associations. Maybe the interest in her generally is where the true pathos lies. Nobody suggested making it more than a passing reference. I don't think burying someone in family skeletons is appropriate, but it's simply not wp:npov to reference the father-in-law's accomplishments but not his equally-defining felony conviction (as other cited media do). Also, I don't think sensitivity and compassion require avoiding all that is negative (at the risk of wp:npov), as long as it's treated with sensitivity and given appropriate weight (take a look at wp:WELLKNOWN#Public figures). The reason I added it in the first place was that I followed the link here to his bio and was shocked that a Wikipedia article would mention his congressional service but not his conviction. It jumped out as me as being seriously evasive and slanted. John2510 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Katie Couric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A video of Couric was posted to YouTube which allegedly shows her making fun of Sarah Palin's children's names. It was added unsourced to her article. Within one day, blogs picked up on the item. Now, reliable sources have begun their reporting on it. Like the editted video of another high government official, how should this be treated? When should it be included? 04:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the incident is notable enough for a BLP, it's trivia.Jarhed (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jarhed. 24-hour news cycle trivia. Exclude. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors just itching to put it in her article. They don't seem to understand the basic BLP issue much less the fact that Wikipedia does not report the news. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

List of persons who have made fun of Sarah Palin's children's names? It'd run into the thousands, I'd wager. Fences&Windows 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have a section on The Palin interviews (2008) I would say this is somewhat related to content already in the article. But also since this is a BLP we should certainly err on the side of caution. Admittedly I have not read all the refs that were offered up. But the ones I saw all seemed to say the same thing and looked like the common journalistic practice of "copy&pasting". I suppose if Couric herself or one of her producers, or even the "Palin camp" say something quotable about the video it could gain enough "weight" to be included. But for now I would say exclude. Colincbn (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge

67.101.5.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding information that people have agreed to The Giving Pledge, but sourcing it only to http://givingpledge.org . That pledge seems controversial, so requires a reliable source. I've pointed him to a reliable source for some of the names, but he refuses to use it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The active discussion about this issue is at Talk:Bill Gates#Edit request As Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) encouraged earlier, we should have this discussion in a single place, though I understand why he/she felt obligated to post something here. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a clearly inappropriate place for the discussion. It's possible it should be on WP:RSN, but not in the Bill Gates article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• This IP is spamming this PDF link to multiple BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now reported at WP:ANI#The Giving Pledge, although the primary discussion should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. From my obviously biased perspective, what happened was:

1. Find out a bunch of billionaires have joined The Giving Pledge, which has its own website where they document which billionaires have taken the pledge, documentation that includes facsimiles of the letters each of the billionaires wrote when they took the pledge.
2. Create a {{cite web}} that I can use to add it to appropriate places in each of the relevant BLP articles, tailoring as I go along (and sometimes bundling in minor other changes while I'm there).
3. In the middle of this, Arthur Rubin posts on my user talk page, and at that point I notice that he had also reverted _every one_ of my BLP article changes. This appears (to me) to be a harsh response. The horrible BLP-risky thing I'm doing is saying, based on an organization's official website, that this or that billionaire has taken a pledge to give away lots of their money.
4. Arthur Rubin then routes me to various process-related talk pages/incident pages/etc. (asking along the way that I try to confine the discussion to a single talk page.
5. Meanwhile, she/he re-reverts my edits since I have failed to convince him personally of the reliability of The Giving Pledge website.

I guess I need to look around and find out where else I need to defend myself. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the signing of the pledge is a notable part of each of those individual biographies- if no independent sources have written about that person's signing of the pledge, then I'm not convinced that discussion of it belongs in an article. I'd be more inclined to wait until each of them gives away the money (at which point, it seems likely that more reliable sources will become available, and also that the pledge will be a more important part of that individual's life). I wouldn't have a problem with using the list to create a category for signers of the pledge, though. My opinion, freely offered and free for ignoring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment is scope creep. ARubin's issue is whether The Giving Pledge website can be cited as a reliable source. Do you think its an unreliable source? 67.101.5.165 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The website itself is what we call a "primary source" - we need reliable secondary sources such as quality newspapers and news organisations who have reported on the pledge and the pledgers. If the BBC for example has an article on it's news website about the pledge and giving a list of pledgers we could use that. Exxolon (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether the "Giving Pledge" is of sufficient encyclopedic notability to add to lots of individual BLP articles. So far, it doesn't appear to be, in that these people's pledges have apparently not attracted discussion by multiple reliable sources. The pledge site itself is not sufficient notability, as it is a Primary source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: To 67.101.5.16, it is absolutely not about "defending yourself", because nobody is attacking you. Wikipedia is not a fight - it is a collaborative project where we work together, in accordance with policies decided by consensus, to build a high-quality encyclopedia. So I'd suggest you take a step or two back and not see this as a battle to be won or lost, because I don't think that approach will really help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The giving pledge is not strictly a primary source. It isn't a secondary source, per se. But it isn't a journal or a logbook record or a personal document of some kind. It is a notable charity organization. We should treat its public statements like we would treat the public statements of any private organization which isn't in the business of producing secondary sources--sanely. Just like we would be comfortable sourcing the Ford foundation to say that Billionaire Bob is on the board, we should be comfortable sourcing this site in saying that Billionaire Jill has pledged to give some significant fraction of her wealth away. Obviously these comments should be given their due weight in the text of the biography and in some bios that due weight may be nothing. But all this talk above about the website being a primary source or adding the info being a BLP violation is a bit overwrought. Protonk (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, but WP:RS requires that we have multiple reliable sources, and I think we could really do with at least one independent source. The question also remains as to whether it is of sufficient notability on an individual case-by-case basis to add to each BLP article, and I think that has to be weighted according to how notable it is in each specific case. For example, as he is high profile and it has been in the news, in the case of Bill Gates it might be fine, but for another person who's pledge hasn't been talked about anywhere, it might not be approriate. Someone suggested in one of the other discussions that perhaps a category of Giving Pledge donors might be a good idea, and I think that's worth considering - all pledgers could then be added to the category, but talk of their individual pledges only added if their individual pledge itself has attracted attention. Any thoughts on that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing a few concepts here. Notability requires that we have multiple reliable sources (and some level of detail), but notability is an article inclusion concept, it doesn't speak to article content. If we wanted to start articles on Billionaire Jill's philanthropic work and all we had were the giving pledge's website, we would not be in a position to start such an article. As for the comment that the pledge needs to have attracted some attention, perhaps. I said above UNDUE should guide how we treat this, but note that the pledge itself is only going to be a newsworthy moment for a small subset of the pledgers. Some of those will be newsworthy because they are so rich (Gates, Buffet), others because they were available to be interviewed about it, and others because it comes up in a profile. The arbitrariness of press coverage is not new, but we should keep it in mind when suggesting that only those whose pledge has attracted press coverage should have the pledge mentioned. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Imo a special category would only raise questions if it is added to a biography without the pledge explicitly being mentioned in the article. But I agree that we should only mention individual pledges if secondary sources have reported about Billionaire Tom sharing his wealth. Adding a notice to each BLP on the pledge list by default would be trivial. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Giving Pledge is already plenty notable.[5] Additional sources are not hard to find that copy the charity's list in other reliable sources. For example, I woke up this morning to find a mini-edit war going on at the usually quiescent article for George Kaiser, but it was no problem to find coverage of Kaiser's pledge in traditional reliable sources[6] and at least one article about Kaiser and T. Boone Pickens also includes the complete list of pledgers.[7] The complete pledge list has been picked up and copied in other sources.[8][9] Reuters ran a story on August 4 with excerpts of the letters from about 17 of the 40.[10] While there's always room for case-by-case WP:WEIGHT analysis, I agree with Protonk's comment above comparing this to the Ford Foundation and I don't really see any reason why the charity's list should be viewed as unreliable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying that the charity's list is unreliable, just that it's a primary source (albeit with some caveats, as mentioned above), and that Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources - and copies of the primary source don't count. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am starting to think that a pledge is not notable at all, donations are notable as in the case of Gates, very notable the others unless they do anything I don't think its notable, its more promo that noteworthy. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like it has plenty of secondary sources which can be used.[11].--Civilizededucation^talk 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment on the above discussion, please read WP:NNC. Notability doesn't factor in to content decisions within articles. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Answering the key question

If I were editing as a credentialed editor, I wouldn't need to ask this question, but since almost all of my contributions are made without logging in, I seek assurance. If I were to resume citing one page or another of the official website of The Giving Pledge as a source (e.g. http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/AugustPledgeLetters.pdf, the PDF containing facsimiles of the often detailed letters each pledger wrote), is it appropriate for Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) or other editors to challenge (or even revert) my contribution on the basis that the website is unreliable? Arthur Rubin seems pretty firm in his/her insistence that at least for BLP articles, it is unreliable. Thanks 67.100.125.34 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

I don't see any evidence that the web site is reliable for anything except the organization's press releases. I admit it's unlikely that they would say anything libelous about their donors (even though, being supported by Bill Gates, they may have an impressive legal force at their command), but we are more restricted in making unsupported statements than the law allows. My take is, until a consensus is established here, we should only list pledgers if that pledge is reported by news media, or clearly by the pledgers themselves. For many of the ones you've added, reliable sources for the pledge are available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We use cites like this all the time for uncontroversial claims like "so and so serves on the board of XYZ foundation" or "so and so is an associate editor of a journal". Even when another source is available, that doesn't prevent us from using the source. We can just cite both, helping the reader along to the charity org (especially if the newspaper doesn't include a hyperlink). This isn't and shouldn't be a controversial subject, we don't need to read WP:RS parsimoniously. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you didn't bother to engage with the following editors:

• Boing! said Zebedee: "Nobody is saying that the charity's list is unreliable".
• Protonk: "Just like we would be comfortable sourcing the Ford foundation to say that Billionaire Bob is on the board, we should be comfortable sourcing this site in saying that Billionaire Jill has pledged to give some significant fraction of her wealth away."
• Arxiloxos: "I don't really see any reason why the charity's list should be viewed as unreliable."

There's also Protonk's WP:NNC point. I don't understand why you aren't engaging with the people on the noticeboard, since you brought this issue here. 67.100.125.34 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

My suggestion to 67.100.125.34 is to be sure and include an additional source or two from other reliable sources. along with the link to the Giving Pledge website. I do think that the website link is not only reliable but also valuable, because it provides a link to the philanthropist's own words explaining their decision to join the pledge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In spite of several editors (Boing! said Zebedee, Protonk, Arxiloxos) disagreeing with Arthur Rubin's claims that The Giving Pledge's website is unreliable, he/she is reverting BLPs, citing unreliability instead of engaging in a discussion of the issue here. 67.101.6.203 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've clearly established that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's web site is not a reliable source for their "members" associations with the organization; I don't see a significant difference here. Both charities are run by honest people with controversial motives.

I don't see any of the editors here other than Protonk saying the web site is reliable, but even if it were, it would still be a BLP violation, unless we have a third party source for the pledge, even if that third party source is copying givingpledge.org . Contrary to Protonk's assertion, it is a controversial subject, or the organization wouldn't need to exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct. For one, the IP editor is making the same assertion. For another, you are stretching the meaning of "BLP violation" to its very limits. This whole discussion has been an exercise in shifting goalposts. The original complaint was that the inclusion of the links violated BLP. That claim being thoroughly dispensed with, the opposition became "the information isn't notable", but notability has nothing to do with a line in an article. Finally we arrive at "now it is controversial, so even if it were reliable, it wouldn't be enough". No. I'm glad you mentioned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because it saves me the trouble of finding a perfect example of a controversial organization. I challenge any reasonable observer to tell me that the aim and nature of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is anywhere near as controversial as The Giving Pledge. Don't worry, I'll wait. As for your last sentence, it is totally non-sensical. Habitat for Humanity exists absent any controversy about whether or not people should be allowed to build houses for the homeless on their own time. Protonk (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) to comment here since I claimed they agreed that The Giving Pledge's website was reliable, and Arthur Rubin disagrees. Thanks. 67.101.7.100 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised that this discussion is still ongoing. For the record, I am another editor, "other than Protonk", who has also stated, repeatedly, that the website is reliable for the proposed purpose. Again: It's reliable for the proposed purpose. Using it is not a BLP violation. Moreover, the entire list has been reported and reproduced by other reliable sources. The Giving Pledge itself has gotten wide coverage and it's clearly a notable fact about each of the philanthropists at this point. (At this point, for some of the less famous billionaires who have joined to pledge, this fact might be one of the more notable facts about them.) The website is useful because it includes links to the various philanthropists' own words explaining their reasons for making the pledge. I am hoping that Arthur Rubin will voluntarily delete all those {{vc}} tags he's stuck on the citations in various articles; I see no basis for retaining those tags. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, reliability in the BLP context is not the same as general reliability. To give further examples of situations in which we cannot use an organization's web site to source that a person signed its petition or pledge:

1. We cannot use AE911T, although a perfectly respectable charity (regardless of its views), to source that scientist X signed their petition, without an external source that it really was scientist X. We could use their site to support scientist X is on the board of AE911T....
2. we cannot use 350.org's statement that "X is a "350 messenger" without evidence that X agrees (and some assertion that it's important to X's article.) 350.org is a "perfectly respectable charity" (to use the anon's words in another thread.)
3. You may recall a petition hosted at University of Oregon (against) anthropogenic global warming. I signed the petition; but others who have "signed" the petition now claim they signed something completely different, and/or want to revoke their signature. (My current stand, although not exactly relevant: I think the AGW was unproved at the time I signed the petition; I now think that it's uncertain, although much of the evidence against it is unavailable in peer-reviewed journals for political reasons.) Nonetheless, it's not in the article about me, for good reasons.

I further question whether the pledge is of interest, especially for billionaires who have reneged on some previous pledges, but that's not a BLP question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) First off, saying "reliability in the BLP context is not the same as general reliability" on this noticeboard comes across as condescending...editors participating on the BLPN (well non-IP editors anyway) should be given the good-faith benefit of the doubt that they are familiar with BLP guidelines and policies.

After searching the BLPN's archives, I found only one of the three examples you cite, 350.org, is mentioned (and mentioned repeatedly). Since neither AE911T nor the University of Oregon's anthropogenic global warming poll have been raised as BLPN issues here, that suggests only your 350.org example may be relevant.

The implication you're making is

1. both 350.org and The Giving Pledge are websites that documents petition signers/pledgers,
2. 350.org has repeatedly provoked BLPN activity,
3. therefore any website that documents petition signers/pledgers, including The Giving Pledge, should be treated as unreliable in BLP articles

Can BLP guidelines really be interpreted to say that?

Also, why isn't http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/AugustPledgeLetters.pdf the "evidence that X agrees" they made the pledge? Do you sincerely believe The Giving Pledge would create a packet of forged pledge letters? 67.100.125.21 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Suttle

• 174.71.89.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A poster has repeatedly posted negative information in a biased manner. This apperaed in two sections. First, there is "Snow Removal" in which he sourced an internet comment board as his source. The second one is "movement to impeach" which is sourced by a Facebook page with only 100 people in it.

Those are not wiki reliable for that content, I have removed them , again, and left the IP 174.71.89.43 a note on his talkpage to discuss the edits here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

News organizations aren't RS? amazing.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative information updated With 11 references from local news. Still said to be "facebook attack".--174.71.89.43 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You did add 11 news articles, but most of those were about the effort to remove snow. None contained any direct criticism of the mayor himself and some were not even on the same issues, such as the potholes articles. Others, were links to message boards for user comments. Hardly "grossly inadequate." Again this is not a partisan attack board. --Go2102 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes about the effort to remove snow and his mishandling of it and the budget problems start started the mess.--174.71.89.43 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cindy Guyer - disputed d.o.b.

There is a dispute about date of birth at Cindy Guyer. The article showed 1961 until May 2009 when an IP changed it to 1969, and that is what the article currently shows, cited to her Facebook page. Two days ago an SPA started trying obsessively (50 edits in two days) to change it back to 1961, citing IMDb. I have blocked the SPA for three days for edit warring, but I am sure s/he will be back. We must have had this kind of thing before, but I don't know the precedents. Questions:

• do we gallantly allow a lady to specify her own age?
• If not, given that neither Facebook nor IMDb are reliable sources, is there some source that could settle the issue - eg, are US birth certificates online?

The SPA offers to fax a copy driving license, but given Photoshop and the passions that have clearly been aroused here I don't know that that would be convincing (I recall the story of Zsa Zsa Gabor, in court for slapping a policeman, being sentenced by the judge to have her correct d.o.b. recorded in her driving license). JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We do allow SPS for such dates, but if they are disputed and eight years apart it is clearly an issue and imo better removed until a stronger citation arrives. Google results suggest May 14, 1961 http://www.celebs101.com/biography-2967-Cindy+Guyer+Complete+Biography.html Cindy Guyer date of birth - Google search. Is the facebook official site? Or a fansite? If it is clearly official then we could add it and attribute it to her, as in..Za za posted on her facebook account that she was born on ..... this really is only an issue if it is disputed as this clearly is.. I have used this self published twitter cite to date Tinsel Koreys birth-date and as it was only one year not bothered to attribute although it is clear in the citation that it is from her twitter. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Her "official site" is http://cindyguyer.net/ but is all images, no information; the Facebook entry looks like hers, rather than a fan-site, but I don't know how to be sure of that - it's not linked from cindyguyer.net, for instance. 14 May 1961 is what the article said from when it was created in 2005 until an IP changed it on 31 May 09. If I had to bet, I'd bet on 1961, but since it is contentious (the SPA has admitted in a now-deleted unblock request to being engaged in a legal dispute with her), I agree best to leave it out altogether. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I saw the official site and there is no bio there...I looked at the facebook site and it had nothing there that asserted official to me, like perhaps private detail and personal pictures etc, so yes, lets keep it out for the time being without a stronger citation, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noted on the talk page that the d.o.b. has been removed as contentious BLP, and asked that no one put it back without a RS. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Aged 25 in Nov 1993:[12]. 28 in April 1996:[13]. 47 in Feb 2009:[14]. Hmm, that doesn't add up.... That last source has some more biographical information, which could be useful: the birthdate is not the only problem with that article. Fences&Windows 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maxine Waters

I really don't do US politics, but this looks like a hatchet job at places to me. Stuff is sourced, but how much the sources are being spun for partisan reasons I'm not sure. Once user is doing a lot of editing here. I've removed some statements as misleading, but it really needs a read over by an informed neutral person.--Scott Mac 22:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see you've met Freakshownerd (talk · contribs). Good luck. Given his involvement, I don't really feel like touching the article with a ten-foot pole, but I agree that some sort of additional scrutiny and oversight would be useful. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Li

Pedia2007z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - persistent addition of controversial materials to the page of Andrew Li. Andrew Li is currently the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, and is accused by the user of lying and covering up the wrongdoing of fellow judges. No reliable sources are provided. His edits have been reverted a number of times, and despite multiple warnings, the user has persisted in adding the defamatory material. The user has done the same thing to the Chinese version of the page: [15].Craddocktm (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pedia2007z was blocked 48hrs for violations of the WP:BLP policy by Administrator Materialscientist - Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharik Currimbhoy

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

This biography is either a hyperbolic hagiography written by the subject's underlings--or, more likely, indicative of an attempt at self-glorication by a non-notable individual writing about himself using multiple editor ids. More seriously, the author(s) provide a source whose title seems relevant but whose content disproves the assertion that the subject is an incumbent baronet. According to the source, the incumbent is "Sir Mahomed (Fazalbhoy[3]) Currimbhoy Ebrahim, 4th baronet"/"Born on the 24th of June, 1935. Succeeded to the title on the 4th of March, 1952."..."resident in Pakistan (Baitullah 33, Bait-ul-Amen Mirza, Kalig Beg Rd, Jameshed Quarters, Karachi, Sind, Pakistan[20])". I recommend that the article be removed forthwith for the aforementioned reasons and for the use of misleading mechanisms employed by the subject-author to keep is article on Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphic333 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proded for deletion. Suspect puffery and bogus, or overblown, claims.--Scott Mac 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up in an attempt to see if a real article is there somewhere. I don't think it is and agree with the Prod. Most of the mentions are trival and he's only the subject of a single article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hannes Smárason

Hannes Smárason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some time ago I appealed for deletion due to non-notability (which was voted "keep" btw) and after which I cleaned up a lot of the problems I saw with the article. Since then there has been a series of deletions/reverts on this article for an extended period of time (not by me). In its latest incarnation I believe there are issues of privacy WP:DOB and material that may adversely affect a person's reputation WP:NPF. Can someone more experienced than me take a look at it and see what, if anything, could/should be done? Gismoto28 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed and bit of the weight and tidied. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Gismoto28 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

This revision of the WP:Sandbox needs to be deleted from history. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to report this, please read Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for details. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Colfer2 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Danielle Staub and maybe Victoria Sellers

Two non-notable (in my opinion) persons who nevertheless recently survived AfD's. In the case of Ms. Staub, I removed material tending to besmirch her reputation (notwithstanding that it was referenced) on the grounds that she is a very small fish and give her a break, and explained this on the talk page, but its been restored. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but maybe somebody else is willing to.

In the case of Ms. Sellers, similar, although I just removed the besmirching (but referenced) material. It hasn't been restored yet but it might be. Herostratus (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian Harvey

This article seems to have been a vandalism target the past few months, I've attempted to remove as much as I can, but don't have time to run a full check on it at the moment. The Brian/Bryan Harvey namespace is also getting a bit crowded, I'm currently counting 4 articles sharing it:

• Brian Harvey - British pop and dance music singer
• Bryan Harvey - US baseball player
• Bryan Harvey (musician) - American musician
• Brian Harvey (lecturer) - Lecturer/Professor at Berkeley College

A disambiguation page and/or renaming the articles to include middle initials/names might be a good idea. --Brandished (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ally McCoist

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

I've had some problems with partisan editors looking to whitewash this prominent Scottish footballer's BLP. Specifically, an off-field assault conviction in 1987 which is been reverted out despite its clear notability in reliable sources. The Independent The Guardian McCoist was convicted (where two team-mates were found not proven) and fined £150 by the courts. He was also fined two weeks' wages by his club Rangers (£1500).

I'm informed by the editors concerned that the referenced material is unsuitable because it is variously "negative" or "minor". This seems to me to deny WP:BLP - particularly WP:WELLKNOWN. Self-styled "experienced user" Off2riorob reverted with a claim it is "a minor conviction unworthy of note," yet he or she argued strongly for the inclusion of Cherie Blair's £10 train ticket penalty as a notable "controversy." Again this doesn't seem to stack up and I would appreciate some guidance from the community. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not a whitewash its a minor issue not worthy of hosting on wikipedia , a minor assault charge and a small fine. As for Cherie Blair there is no connection and no comparison between two issues, its like chalk and cheese. Your additions are repeatedly flagged by BOTS as possible violations, and you are constantly being reverted by multiple experienced users, I am not a partisan editor as regards Scottish football at all, I don't care about it, it is your repeated additions of singularity controversial issues to the articles of living people that I am bothered about. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that (in the vein of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) comparing the two cases isn't useful, I have to say that I think that the Cherie Blair train ticket incident really shouldn't be included in her biography. But we can discuss that on the talk page of the article!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a repeated bot comment about your additions (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) . Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

those two people are hardly of equal notoriety. Your endless spree of edits across Wikipedia including negative and questionable material on articles affiliated to a certain club, has reached the point that your contributions can't be taken seriously. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an assault charge it was a conviction - widely publicised in reliable sources. Also, please try to look at the content at hand instead of making baseless ad hominem attacks on me. For the umpteenth time, there is no requirement that edits are not "controversial" - as long as they are properly sourced. The bots pick up everything to do with racism/criminality/sex etc. Does that mean nothing on these subjects should be added? I will let others judge whether the Cherie Blair case points to hypocrisy and/or gaming on your part. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, imagine, Rangers only paid star players £1500 for two weeks back then.--Scott Mac 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...and they were one of the top-spenders in Britain at that time. So I suppose the 'equivalent' in today's money would be getting on for a quarter of a million quid. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

David Campbell (composer)

The article for David_Campbell_(composer) (which at one time was deleted, but subsequently reappeared) was recently heavily edited by a user with the name Kanebell Assistant, which caught my interest because Campbell's wife's name is Raven Kane. I looked at what was done to the article, and it has been puffed up enormously (for instance, listing much more detail about his works than you typically see for this kind of article) and uses non-neutral language like "As an arranger and conductor, David Campbell has become the go-to guy for innovative orchestral collaborations with pop and rock artists." On top of that, much of it is not referenced, and of the references I looked at, a few were no good. I admit, I am not interested in taking on the job of editing it and fixing the references, I just want to point it out because I feel it is not up to Wiki standards. Candy (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at Kanebell Assistant's contributions, it is clear that his or her edits on Wikipedia all involve David Campbell. Also, I have found that there is a Kanebell Enterprises that is owned by David Campbell: http://www.manta.com/c/mm5dvl1/kanebell-enterprises Candy (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is usually for cases where people are adding undue material. You may want to make this report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I had a quick look at the article – it's not too bad, but I added it to my watchlist because it does have a couple of puff items, mainly the one you mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. I am not familiar with all the different noticeboards! Candy (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unverified insertion of recent death date into Laurence Gardner

Resolved

 – subject appears to have expired - detail added to his biography, cited to his official website Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors are inserting a death date into this article. I can find a few blogs and forums with this date, but no news stories. One editor said his webmaster knows about it, but it's not on his website. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your totally correct , we need a quality reliable citation to report a death. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• - It does appear to be true (verifiable) and I have now added it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. I've removed a 2nd reference - we don't need it, we wouldn't have used it as an RS before, and if we use anything else to verify his death it will hopefully be a news source or similar. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Daily News

This article contains the following unsourced claim: "The founder of the newspaper was accused of committing heroin trades and series of corruptions in 70s by Hong Kong government, earning him the moniker 'White Powder'. He fled to Taiwan and never returned to Hong Kong." I'm just going to remove that, but finding a source for it, if possible, might be better.

There is a next section about a criminal conviction that appears to me to be sourced to original legal documents - without 3rd party reliable sources I have often found that sourcing directly to legal documents is WP:OR for the purpose of POV-pushing. Certainly this at least needs some scrutiny.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed that - edit summary, primary court record, removed, please find independent secondary sources. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivaldo

95.68.37.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is an IP user who keeps adding unsourced claims and weasel words to the article, and he keeps citing unreliable sources (such as Wikipedia itself) or repeat the same source within the same paragraph. He repeatedly accuses me of being "not good". Despite my attempt to explain the issue on the talk page of the article, he seems to be having none of it. Craddocktm (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least the content is not attacking or defamatory. He seems to want to help but has only been here a day and about ten edits, I would try to explain what is wrong with his additions but if he won't listen, I would revert anything her adds that is detrimental to the article and try to explain to him, or you can try letting him mess it all up for a few hours so that he can see what a mess he is making and then go and revert to the last decent version. Ill watchlist it and we can revert him together, hopefully he will take his time and become a worthy contributor.Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPN related discussion in Arb Com case about Race and Intelligence

Apologies if this is too far off topic, but I may be sanctioned in an Arb Com case for "disruptive forum shopping" for three posts that I made at BLPN. Background here. My claim is that my behavior at BLPN adhered to the highest standards of Wikipedia. Not only did I do nothing wrong, but I did everything right. Yet, perhaps I am kidding myself and my behavior justifies significant punishments. (I can hardly judge my own case fairly!) So, I would be curious what BLPN regulars think of my behavior. Comments (ideally at the Arb Com page) welcome! David.Kane (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The accusation against you at Race and intelligence is here and runs like this: David.Kane (talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view. In pursuit of his agenda, he has disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation),[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] has engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard,[24][25][26] has tag-teamed with users Mikemikev and Captain Occam.[27][28][29] and gamed the system with a spurious outing complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents[30].

The original of this accusation was badly listed, it has been corrected and two ArbCom members have now voted in support of it.

I have a little bit of sympathy for you on the "outing" complaint, but this looks like ridiculous over-reaction on your part, you should indeed have mailed an admin and not left yourself open to claims that "both you here and the David Kane at gnxp.com write under your full names, and you both have the same interest in race-related issues. But what clinches it is, the David Kane at gnxp.com explicitly claims he is you on Wikipedia [169]." As you've been told, "If you have an imposter at gnpx.com, then you need to contact gnpx.com."

It is not obvious to me that your conduct at BLP has been disruptive but the chances are high that you've been making a nuisance of yourself at Race and intelligence. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand the complaint (which I largely agree with) is not that it is your particular behaviour at any of the boards that is disruptive, but the act of forumshopping itself. In this keys my beef is with your attempt at turning to the content issue into a BLP issue - which it isn't IMO (because we are fully in our right to reproduce other authors criticisms of living persons (founded or unfounded) as long as they are sourced to reliable sources). In my view this worked as an (admittedly very well thought out) tactical stalling manevure attempting to direct the high level of BLP concern in the community to help you censor notable viewpoints that are critical of Arthur Jensen. You seem to always behave with a high degree of civility and even courtenousness at this board and at Race and Intelligence - the disruption your opponents are complaining about is your using this kind of tactical maneuvres in a content dispute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue I have with your assumption about this is that even if the claims about Arthur Jensen weren’t a BLP issue, I don’t think David.Kane could have known that without asking about it here. There were several people who had far more experience as Wikipedia editors than him who also believed that it was a legitimate BLP issue, including Jimbo Wales, and someone else from this noticeboard awarded David a barnstar for “detecting a complex WP:BLP violation that few understood, regarding living person Arthur Jensen”. Perhaps David.Kane, Jimbo Wales, and the person who gave David a barnstar were all wrong about this, but even if they were, could David.Kane really have been expected to know ahead of time that this wasn’t a BLP issue when even Jimbo Wales thought it was one?

Your attitude (and that of the arbitrator who posted this proposed finding of fact) seems to be that if someone raises an issue at the BLP noticeboard which eventually turns out to not be a BLP violation, then that can retroactively be considered to have been disruptive, even if there was no way for the person to know it wasn’t a BLP violation before they posted about it here. By that logic, the only way for an editor to make sure they aren’t disruptive is by only asking about anything here if they’re already 100% certain that it’s an actual BLP violation. If editors are discouraged from asking about issues here when they’re uncertain whether those issues are BLP violations or not, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of this noticeboard’s existence? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a question of whether we can reasonably assume that DK came here with a question in good faith or whether he was attempting to "game the system". I am personally happy to extend the assumption of good faith to DK in which case no sanction about this issue would be necessary. I was merely explaining what the motivation for the complain about "disruptive forum shopping" was about, which isn't about disruptive behaviour in the BLP forum but about the possibility that DK may have used a change of venue as a vehicle for gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. As for Jimbo's support I am pretty sure was just a backbone reaction in favour of a strict policy against unsourced controversy in BLPs - and untill he takes an active ineterest in the issue of R&I related articles I wouldn't place too much importance in his edicts about the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

“As for Jimbo's support I am pretty sure was just a backbone reaction in favour of a strict policy against unsourced controversy in BLPs”

Jimbo said more than this. His comment is here:

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.

The last sentence is the most important, I think: “we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics.” This was David.Kane’s perspective also, and the basis for his assertion that claiming this about Arthur Jensen (cited to books such as The Funding of Scientific Racism) was a BLP violation. It really seems excessively harsh to suggest that David.Kane should be sanctioned for bringing this up here based on the assumption that it might be a BLP violation, when Jimbo Wales thought it was likely to be one also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as it should already be abundantly clear I disagree with you, Jimbo and DavidKane about that reinterpretation of BLP - which encourages original research by editors and disallows criticism published reliable third party sources as sources for BLPs unless the BLP subject agrees with the criticism. It is ludicrous and would kill the reliability of wikipedia if it were implemented. But this is not the topic now - the topic is Daviod Kane asking whether he has misbehaved here in the BLP forum I am saying that he hasn't and that it is irrelevant because the question is whether his coming here in the first place was misbehaviour, not how he acted in the forum. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have previously commented on the WP:SPA editors who are extremely civil but relentless in their efforts to promote an undue point of view in race and intelligence articles. As always, David Kane's comments on this noticeboard were fine, but experienced editors can see the strategy of using anything possible to prevent due and sourced scientific criticism of Jensen on the basis that Jensen is alive and so nothing negative must appear. We assume that David Kane's behavior was entirely noble, but it is indistinguishable for WP:CPUSH forum shopping. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan

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

Hi I wanted to know if the last paragraph of the section (which I partialy changed so as to be really what Wafa Sultan says) added by User:The Sphinx is relevant and/or acceptable and if so can it be sourced by solely youtube?--Chrono1084 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it cited to those unofficial youtube uploads. There are at first glance some more dubious looking contents and ctes and externals and so on that need a look at by an experienced user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick.--Chrono1084 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Youtube is not very good at all to support any content and only the ones that are on official uploaders should be added, the rest are likely copyright violations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If a person is put on record making controversial statements, then a YouTube video is just as good as an official transcript. This looks like it was taken from a personal video camera, so there is no such thing as an "official uploader", copyright issues and what not. Your arguments are IMHO just bureaucratic. Especially that the two YouTube links I posted (which aren't my uploads, btw) were removed, but two others were left standing in the same article, even though their sources are just as "unofficial" as the ones I found. Why?

Chrono1084, I don't know what your agenda is, but you claimed in your last edit that she never mentioned atom bombs and was probably talking about "re-education". However, I have quoted the audience member that explicitly asked "Atom bombs?" and how she responded in the affirmative. It's in the video for you to see, so why are you trying to cover it up? Besides, it is a controversial issue and people have been talking about it on blogs, I just think that linking to blogs in Wikipedia is poor practice.

Anyway, I've restored the passage with the links and added the moments where the statements are being made, for better verification. If you want an experienced user to look at it, then fair enough. But if you don't want YouTube videos in the article, then please remove the two others that are posted, along with their passages, just for consistency. Thank you. The Sphinx (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read once more the article's history, you'll see that I said there was no advocacy for atomic bombs in the first part and that there was no talk of atomic bombs in the second. I think, it was a bad idea for you to restore your edits but since you did, I'll restore my correction. Of course I still agree with Off2riorob's deletion because of his arguments. As for having an agenda, you sure made yours clear. Your statement that it's a controversy needs to be sourced.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those comments from Spinx about youtube and videos being as good as an official transcript are way of the mark. I have removed it again, please do not replace it, if you want to again attempt to add it then present it here so users can look at it and judge the addition and its value and reliability, you can also take the citations and the content you want to support to the WP:RSN to see what users there think about them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be only one more youtube link to this official channel David Horowitz Freedom Center http://www.youtube.com/user/dhfcenter and it supports a small quote from that video, I am not too keen on that as it is primary research , but it is only one and it is to an official channel, perhaps someone else will comment about that? I am tempted to remove that also, at least the quote, and replace it with, and she responded in an interview and then the citation to the video.? I removed the actually quote. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

desired addition

Alright then. Here's what I posted. I want people to comment on it and whether it's reliable or not:

During a speech to an audience in New York, Sultan has suggested the use of atomic bombs against Muslims [Video Source (quote from 00:34 onwards)], saying "I truly believe that King Abdullah can change Islam overnight, but you need to put pressure on him to do it. And the same kind of pressure you put on Japan (..)". When an audience member interjects and asks "Atom bombs?", she replied, "Yes, eventually the West will need to do it". When asked later by another audience member, "How would we stop [Islam] from infiltrating?", she eventually said " (..) You reversed the Japanese culture, the same, you might need to do it, you might need to do a heavy pressure, I cannot predict the kind of pressure, you understand it, I don’t have to say it."[Video Source (quote from 02:08 onwards)]

The Sphinx (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan Quinn (fighter)

Dan Quinn (fighter) appears to be a royal mess, extensively using primary sources from Quinn himself including Youtube videos, as well as others like court cases. I was thinking deletion but there does appear to be at least one old RSS discussing Quinn [31] Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A shocking article that might be best stubbing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Cameron and a few other users recently, I just took a hatchet to the whole thing. I definitely don't think it should be deleted, since Quinn fought Frank Mir, but still, yikes. Şłџğģő 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reason why I didn't want to delete, I know next to nothing about MMA :-P Actually looking at the article now, it's more clear that he's probably slighly notable. Concentrating on what he's primarily known for, his sport/MMA career, not his Youtube videos with his cat or whatever is of course proper Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lentz biography

The biography of composer Daniel Lentz contains a factual error:

"In 1972, he won the First Prize in the International Composers Competition (Stichting Gaudeamus) in the Netherlands. Lentz was the first American to ever win that competition."

Daniel Lentz was not the first American to win the competition. Previous American First Prize winners were Pauline Oliveros (1962) and John McGuire (1971). The complete list of prizewinners is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudeamus_International_Composers_Award —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snail09 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the citation say? Whatever is in the citation should match the info in the article. If it is uncited then if you feel its wrong then remove it with an explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and linked to our article. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraud accusations against Michael E. Mann

Professor Michael E. Mann is currently the subject of a widely-criticised fraud investigation by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. According to a Va. newspaper,

Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said the revelations "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud. "Given this, the only prudent thing to do was to look into it," Gottstein added. "This is a fraud investigation, and the attorney general's office is not investigating Dr. Mann's specific conclusion." [32]

Another editor has read this to mean that the investigation is into the data itself and has added material to this effect to the BLP on Mann. However, I read the statement as saying that the investigation is into the application for taxpayer-funded grants (the investigation is under the auspices of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act - if there was no financial issue there would be no hook to hang the investigation on). I'd be grateful for outside views on how to parse this statement, as it seems rather important to say exactly what Mann is being investigated for. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It reads to me that the investigation is into the data, the data was used to form the conclusions, Mann appears to have only been responsible for the conclusions derived from the data. There seems to be no claims that Mann falsified the actual data. Why not wait for something to actually happen, this is just the hyperbole and fluff. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really clear what it means, though it's hard to imagine you could have a fraud investigation without examining the alleged manipulation (unless the manipulation was an established fact, which it isn't). Because it is very unlikely that the allegation will be followed up in a timely manner (either because reliable sources won't bother, or because Wikipedians won't notice), and is currently so vague, it shouldn't be included. It can be left on the talk page for followup as/when/if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a whole section about the CRU email controversy, and the AG's investigation is a direct result of that. The fact that there is an ongoing investigation, and the fact that the underlying data to Mann's claim to fame is called into question is the only way to treat accurately and neutrally Mann's hockey stick research. If the investigation and fraud allegations are left out of the article, then the whole discussion of the hockey stick research and conclusions should be removed as well. Removing the AG investigation leaves the remaining discussion about the hockey stick unfairly represented as accurate and beyond dispute when that is not the case. I object to the wholesale removal of that section of the article, as it was extremely well sourced with multiple reliable sources, and it was stated in a neutral manner. There is an entire article about the investigation -- to remove the well sourced, reliable and notable information from this article is censorship. Minor4th 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a link in the Mann article to the AG investigation article, with as little detail as possible (can of worms). That should suffice for now (at least to avoid OMG! Censorship! claims). If you're not familiar with them or haven't looked recently, check out WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. That latter is probably still violated by the prominence given to the CRU episode. Rd232 ^talk

In fact, whether this is an investigation into the data or the grants appears to be in dispute externally too. Cuccinelli says he is only looking into the fraud issue ("results of Mann's research isn't at question but that he is investigating whether Mann defrauded Virginia taxpayers as he sought five public grants"); whereas the university (and Mann) says that it is "an unprecedented attempt to challenge a university professor's peer reviewed data, methodologies and conclusions." (from a Washington Post blog So any addition would need to reflect this conflict in interpretation by the participants itself. --Slp1 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Which states in more detail my point above: and going further and further into the detail of this in the BLP necessarily becomes more and more WP:UNDUE. Leaving UNDUE aside, there is still a BLP issue from airing unclear and unevidenced fraud allegations at the beginning of an investigation which shows every sign of being politically motivated. Ergo it should be merely mentioned in the existing section (with full [currently sketchy, response aside] details available in the topic article), not immediately promoted to its own section and discussed at length. PS The essay WP:RECENTISM is not irrelevant here. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And I must add that I find it disturbing that editors are willing to ignore BLP policy and immediately reinsert the contentious content (and as we're talking about vague insinuations/accusations/entirely unevidenced possibilities of fraud - where it's not really clear what exactly the subject is accused of or what evidence there is - it's surely contentious). For those in the cheap seats, WP:BLP states in its second sentence that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misstating or misunderstanding BLP policy. Please brush up on this policy so that you may apply it correctly in the future. There is no policy that contentious material be removed from a BLP unless it is unsourced or poorly sourced, neither of which apply in this case. Your own quote of BLP policy makes it entirely clear. Please revert yourself as you are the one who has violated policy by removing well sourced information that is about the article subject. If it's acceptable to immediately remove controversial content from BLP's irrespective of high quality sourcing, I have quite a bit of work to do because there are many BLP's that contain negative information that casts aspersion on the LP, and I would prefer that we paint all BLP's in a positive light and not include any of the negative information about them. What do you think? Minor4th 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be argumentative (and do pay attention: at the time you wrote your comment the material had been reinserted and I haven't touched it). The substantive material qualifies as poorly sourced, since it is entirely unclear what exactly the subject is alleged to have done, or is precisely being investigated for, etc. That this vagueness may (I haven't checked) be accurately reproduced from acceptable sources does not magically make it well sourced: it is well established that Reliable Sources are not judged reliable irrespective of context or content (because they often make mistakes). By which I mean, to be clear, that in this context the Thing That Needs Sourcing is the fraud accusation itself, not the Vague Media Report Of Ooh He's Been A Naughty Boy. The latter is well enough sourced, the former is not, which creates poor sourcing because what is communicated to the reader as a result is not fact but insinuation. Clear? And you may still disagree, but BLP caution dictates discussing these issues including whether the sourcing is poor prior to reinsertion. In any case, it is ludicrous for this discussion to proceed as if I'd asked for content to be deleted from Wikipedia. The content exists in its own article and remained linked from the BLP. It is a question of due prominence. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

. Well I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I suppose youre right, my response was a little point-y. I'm frustrated because your removal of well-sourced information in a AGW proponent BLP is so representative of what continually happens im this topic area. NPOV is hard fought, and the section you removed was actually a rare example of a collaborative compromise/give and take among editors of opposing viewpoints. Remarkably, the result was a pretty NPOV summary that included factual information, both the negative and the criticism and response to the negative information. It could be argued that the participation from both sides was an implicit consensus that the summary should be included in the Mann article. It was not UNDUE at all because there was much more attention paid to the reaction to the investigation and it is clear from the summary that the AG's investigation is not well-received. To include praise for Mann's hockey stick research without summarizing the fact that a cloud hangs over it in the form of an ongoing invrstigation by the State AG's office is terribly misleading and intellectually dishonest. The controversy surrounding Mann's research is what the man is most notable for. He is the veritable icon of climate change controversy. Whats more frustrating is that reliably sourced information is often removed from articles in this area when it cuts against the majority POV (a consensus that is shrinking), yet poorly sourced (blogs, op-eds, SPS, Twitter) and completely unsourced content is regularly added to "skeptical" BLP's and articles that call into question the reliability of the scientific consensus. This is why theres an omnibus arb case pending, and the particular article you edited is under probation and has been very contentious and has been subject to many edit and revert wars. For you to come in and unilaterally, and against consensus, remove an entire section citing BLP policy that doesnt apply -- well, at best it's controversial itself and at worst it's tendentious and factionalist. If ChrisO had done it, he would have likely faced severe sanctions; if William Connolley or Polargeo or Stephan Schulz had done it, there would have been an arb com request for enforcement filed. The fact that 2 or 3 editors have reverted you should tell you something. And I should have mentioned before now that ChrisO's description of the controversy is completely misleading as well. The content in question is very clear that it is a taxpayer fraud investigation related to public grants obtained by Mann for his hockey stick research -- thats not disputed at all, and it's stated clearly. But the suspected fraudulent activity involves the question of whether Mann deliberately manipulated climate data to reach a conclusion that he wanted to reach. That is also clearly stated and impeccably sourced. There is actually no controversy over any of that, and there is nothing "vague" about the nature of the potentially fraudulent conduct thay is the subject of the inquiry. Think of this -- if a marginally informed person is googling Michael Mann to learn more about him, and that person arrives at Wiki's BLP, is the person going to get an accurate presentation of what notable, reliable sources have stated about Mann? Nope, not if that section is removed and the remaining content says that Mann has been cleared of wrongdoing and suspicion. Minor4th 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your final sentence makes clear your intentions: you want passersby to be exposed to the vague accusation of fraud right now - before any details are known, and certainly before any conclusions are drawn. Of course conclusions may take ages to emerge publicly and to make it onto Wikipedia, throughout which time these vague insinuations will remain to vaguely discredit the BLP subject. Well that's honest at least... but it is has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The accusations are not vague and the response and Mann's reaction are noted. It does not unfairly discredit the BLP. It lets the reader know that there is currently some doubt about the data behind the hockey stick research and it shouldn't be taken as prima facie accurate and above doubt. Minor4th 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good use of the board. The Washington Post has reported it, and Mann is a public figure. That more than satisfies the BLP policy. One of the reasons we have editors who worry that the BLP policy is too extensive is that it gets misquoted this way, and it's an important policy, so we need to be careful not to make misleading claims about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As the first section of WP:BLP says: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reliable sourcing is just the start of the BLP process. There are many more issues that need to be considered. The fact that something appears in the press does not dictate the way we cover it, or even whether we cover it at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Chris, we dont print rumors and vague allegations. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Some people mistakenly think that if it's in a newspaper it's worth including in a BLP. However, WP:BLP makes it clear that there are more considerations to be taken into account than just reliable sourcing. That's the reason why we have a separate BLP policy in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And why the forest fire? You're double posting, which is just annoying. It's not helping any. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind closing this down here, its a content dispute with only minor BLP concerns, as per SlimV, when a subject is notable and there are a plethora of quality citation discussing it there is no reason to keep it out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, when I removed the section I replaced it with a sentence pointing to the main article. So "keeping it out of the article" is not the issue. It is what is appropriate coverage for this barely-launched investigation at this time. Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "forest fire", as you call it, is because I posted a request for input that seems to have got hijacked for an entirely different discussion. It's most annoying - my original request seems to have been forgotten about. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is what constitutes due coverage. Is 15-20% of the BLP's body text appropriate? Is that the significance of this investigation being launched? Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that issue, because this is indeed a problem. Another editor actually wants to expand that section still further to take it up to about 30% of the article length. The ironic thing is that Mann himself is actually not involved - it is entirely a dispute between the University of Virginia and the Va. Attorney General. Mann doesn't work for the university any more and isn't a party to the dispute. So I question how relevant it actually is to his BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would cut the para down to something like this:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Academic and civil rights groups criticized the decision to investigate and the University of Virginia has filed a countersuit.

Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good but it needs a bit more focus, as the investigation is not "of Mann" himself, and specificity is needed on the subject of the investigation. I would suggest "began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia..." -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Ronnotel has picked up the current wording on that point, and it should be changed. Also, I've just read the main article more carefully, and I see it isn't even established that the Attorney General has the legal standing to request the documents he wants - which disputed request is all that this "investigation" currently amounts to! Clearly it needs mentioning in the Mann article, but in view of this a sentence in the CRU section (since that prompted the request) is quite sufficient. Plus, the relation between the request and the AG litigation against CO2 regulation further reduces the relevance of the whole thing to Mann personally - the guy seems to want the records at least in part to support an unrelated legal battle. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) OK, let's suggest another version, picking up on the point you've just made. I've corrected one point - the university has sued the AG; he didn't sue it, so it's not a countersuit.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's applications for research grants at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. His demand for documents from the University was criticized by academic and civil rights groups and the University of Virginia filed suit to block the demand.

ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine if you include a brief summary about how it applies to the inquiry into potentially manipulated climate data, and that is directly related to Mann and not just the University of Virginia. The whole issue and the reason for the inclusion in an article about Mann is that it's Mann's research practices that are being investigated and called into question. Minor4th 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really - as Rd232 has said, the whole thing is very vague. Basically there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing but the AG wants Mann's old records from the U of V so that he can ... well, nobody really knows what he wants to do with them. You can understand why it's been characterised as a fishing expedition. It's not even clear that there is any actual investigation ongoing, as there's nothing to investigate without the records that the AG wants. Given that, it shows why we need to treat this very carefully - there is a great cloud of innuendo and political game-playing with very little substance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how it reads now:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation of Mann in April 2010 focusing on his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. He served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether fraud may have been committed in relation to the award of four grants. Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, criticized it as "a shameful abuse of his office and a real threat to academic freedom in Virginia."The Union of Concerned Scientists released a letter signed by more than 800 faculty members at state colleges and universities, opposing Cuccinelli's demand and calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted." Mann has stated that subsequent investigations have validated his work and cleared him of wrongdoing. Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said that the Attorney General's office was not investigating Mann's scientific conclusions, but said that it was prudent to look into whether grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. The university filed suit to overturn the demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and charging that Cuccinelli was exceeding his authority.

It would not be this long if you did not insist on including multiple references and content and quotes about the reaction to the investigation. You cannot leave out the prominent aspect of the investigation into Mann's use of climate data, which is what the investigation is looking into. How about this:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli began an investigation in April 2010 focusing on Mann's work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the university seeking a broad range of documents in pursuit of a determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. . The investigation has been criticized by academics and scientists as violative of academic freedom.The university has challenged Cuccinelli's demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and on the basis that Cuccinelli is exceeding his authority.

Minor4th 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one adding detail - I've been trying to trim it but constantly have had editors trying to force in yet more content. Again, though, you're missing the point that Rd232 has made several times above - that it's unclear what exactly is being investigated other than the issue of research grants. Your version introduces unnecessary innuendo. There is too much unnecessary detail in general about the arguments on both sides. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you kept adding "unwarranted and burdensome" and "abuse" -- that certainly was you. And there is not too much unnecessary detail. I thought you wanted to avoid the vague accusations. The way to do that is to cite specifically what's being investigated. Otherwise, leave it as it is. it's not too long in any event. it's a small summary in the overall article. It's well sourced, it's notable and it's about Mann. You're not going to keep out information about the investigation though and how it pertains to Mann. Minor4th 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not only is it unnecessary detail, it misrepresents the sources. The investigation isn't "focussing on Mann's work" according to the cited sources, it's much more specifically "an investigation into "possible violations" by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act." Your phrasing "determination whether research grants were fraudulently obtained through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion" does not mean the same as the spokesman saying that leaked emails "indicate that 'some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions' and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud." You should be able to follow the distinction. The question of an investigation into climate data is not in the cited sources, but is covered in this source used in the main article on the investigation. That source indicates that on July 13, Cuccinelli's lawyers introduced arguments about Mann's scientific conclusions, and the university's lawyers pointed out that this undermined Cuccinelli's statement that the results of Mann's research isn't at question, and was outside his authority. That aspect should be shown if the Attorney's side is being shown. Looks rather like a blog and hence unsuitable for both articles, but the information should be available in better sources. However, these aspects of this political fishing expedition belong in the detailed article, and are inappropriate in the biography. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume by "blog" you mean the Washington Post's Virginia Politics: News and Notes on Politics in Richmond and Northern Virginia. It's perfectly fine as a source since it's clearly covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. The Washington Post is an important source, since it's the area's newspaper of record. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shriya Saran Obscenity charges

I was concerned about the "Obscenity charges" section of this BLP, so I edited it, but was reverted, therefore I have begun a discussion on the talk page, where I have explained my thoughts.

Talk:Shriya Saran#Obscenity charges

Thanks in anticipation of any input.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I commented there (your version is best), and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

The article on Israel Shamir has recently been stubbified by yours truly, as it was borderline libellous. Could those interested keep an eye on it and rebuild as necessary? The subject of the article is aware of it's existence. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure

• - Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure

As this new tool has been used to assist in protecting the Biographies of living people, comments are welcomed as to its possible continued use as the trial has ended. Community consensus is required for continued use.Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alumni of academic and military institutes

I have posted a BLP related question on the reliable sources noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Alumni of academic and military institutes. So far the issue has not received any responses, therefor I am canvasing it here. Please respond at WP:RSN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do we go for assistance on biographies of non-living persons?

I am having difficulty with an anon on the Larry Norman article and need some assistance in sorting out our opposing opinions, but the subject is deceased and I don't see an equivalent noticeboard. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no real noticeboard for those since they aren't covered by any specific policy outside the the ones which cover other pages. But generally speaking, WP:RFC (specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies) or Wikipedia:Third opinion are good ways to try and get help to resolve disputes. If it's a specific sourcing issue Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and if it involves something disputed as OR Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

You could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. If none of that is helpful, take a read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. BTW, remember you can still bring issues involving other living persons on biographies of non living people here.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

Over at Helen Thomas there is a discussion regarding whether to paraphrase the statements she made. The full exchange is replicated in the article body, but there is some debate on whether editors should venture a summary in the lead as well. Comments welcome here. Unomi (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Soho Properties

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

Issue was raised at ANI but is more of a content dispute. More eyes on the article which is getting smeared a bit with BLP issues would be handy --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Translator (Chinese?) needed for Zhou Libo

Can someone who reads Chinese(?) verify that the source supports the content added in this edit [33]. Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not according to google translate it wasn't it did mention his wife and I believe they had a bit of a up and down divorce issue but those comments were not there, the picture also has no evidence of permission and is a possible copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I saw you also got rid of the other copyright vios, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

A user argued that the only person who died in the AIRES Flight 8250 is covered by the BLP policy. I said she wasn't.

Wikipedia:BLP#Deceased states "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased"

My position is that WP:BLP does not apply to the person because the policy clearly states that deceased people are not covered by the policy, despite the policy's statement asking for consideration for recently deceased. His position is that the policy covers the recently deceased despite the policy's statement that "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" (He said on his talk page "No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not,")

Refer to: User talk:MickMacNee#BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And a response to the user, continuing from his talk page:

• "I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy." - The instruction clearly states that dead people are not covered
• "It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased," - There is no other "policy," and no pages about recently deceased. The idea that one should consider relatives should be taken as a consideration or suggestion. Broadly speaking, living people are under BLP, dead people are not.
• "BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives," - BLP is for consideration about text and articles discussing any living person, but any people not specifically mentioned or referred to are outside the scope. Joe Millionaire is mentioned by name and his actions and events are mentioned, so he applies. But his wife Etta, his son Charlie, and his uncle Buck are not covered by BLP.
• "so pretty clearly, BLP applies here." I maintain that the first sentence explicitly states that BLP doesn't apply.
• "And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist." I maintain that the archive discussions say the opposite. The users wanted to caution Wikipedians to give consideration for relatives, but dead people themselves are outside of BLP

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, this is the disputed edit WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking closely at this, but the recently deceased are covered as it pertains to their family, per the policy. What that means is open to debate, but it's incorrect to say that a recently deceased person's article has absolutely no BLP considerations. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine: Which parts of the BLP policy are you referring to that have not been already stated in this thread? I think the heading "Deceased" quite clearly states that the dead people aren't under BLP. The family of the deceased are not covered (unless names of family members and/or actions of the family members are also mentioned, which in this case text about the family members themselves is under the BLP protection) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The part that says "but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased." You're an admin right? It's not saying living family members are protected by BLP (although they are, as all living people are), it's saying living family members are protected with regard to information about their dead relative by BLP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin :) That sentence is a consideration, a guideline of sorts, something to think about when doing an editorial dispute, not a procedural policy like (the rest of) BLP is. This sentence effectively says: Even though dead people are not covered by the BLP policy, one should still think about possible effects on family and friends. It doesn't imply that the family and friends are protected by the BLP policy in that manner relating the content about the deceased person (if the names of family and friends are mentioned and/or their actions are described and implied, then they are protected by the BLP policy).

I agree that one should think about how the family would be affected by the posting, but that concern/dispute is not a BLP dispute. It is a concern that the BLP page mentions anyway as a guideline for editors discussing dead people.

My point is that BLP is not concern when listing the name of the only person to die in an airplane crash, saying that the person had a heart attack

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether or not the victim should be named, isn't it. As the victim is not a Wikinotable person, there is no need to name her IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the non-BLP concerns; that will begin at the talk page (or I can start it now if you want) - In any matter read articles about "one man/woman survives" plane crashes, and you will often see names of the sole survivors (this definitely is a BLP concern when that happens!). WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-BLP discussion is now at Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not every debate about whether a name should be listed or not is governed by the BLP policy. This is one of those cases--Nothing bad is said about her, and what is said is sourced as well as would be expected. Even if it applied, it wouldn't prohibit the edit in question. It's really a consensus question: do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. Once the BLP talk is wrapped up, I will begin a talk page section at Talk:AIRES Flight 8250 so that the non-BLP stuff would be discussed as a consensus question. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Do we name victims when the name is RS'ed, or do we not?" - I think this very much depends on the circumstances, at least for me it does. One very valid question is whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm. In the case of, for example, rape victims, it may very well, and so particular sensitivity is warranted. In other cases, where the victim may have been doing something embarrassing, I would say particular sensitivity is warranted... say for example victims of Advance-fee fraud are often deeply embarrassed later for having fallen for it. (Notice that I don't state this in terms of absolute prohibitions but rather in terms of factors that may rightly pull us in one direction or another.) In this particular case, it is not clear (to me) what the supposed harm would be. There's nothing embarrassing or shameful here, the poor woman died of a heart attack after a plane crash.

I don't think an answer to the very valid question of whether or not naming the name is likely to cause any harm is the end of it, either. There's also the question of whether or not it adds anything to the understanding that the reader may have of the event. In this case, in addition to not seeing what the harm would be, I also don't see what the benefit would be.

Certainly, to sum up, I do think that recently deceased people - particularly non-notable ones who are innocent bystanders who happened to die in a way that caught the attention of the media - are subject to the BLP policy - but that doesn't automatically mean we don't name them - it means that we take an extra level of care and consideration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I take Jimbo's point. However, I think there is another consideration as well. Historically, the notification of a person's death generally becomes a matter of public record. There are often issues of probate, discharge of debt, etc. that members of the public have a right to know about. I don't know if any of those issues apply here - however the principle that death notices are a matter of public record is well-established. In fact, I think there would be few instances where a death should not be reported due to privacy concern. Basically, I believe the "L" in BLP is there for a reason. Ronnotel (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The womans name is not notable and adds nothing of any value. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I agree that adding the name does not appear to add anything of value to the article. However, requiring notability of the subject before listing the name of a decedent is an incorrect interpretation of BLP & N. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really referencing any policy, I was just using my common sense, what little I have. The names of not notable people seem to be un-encyclopedic irrelevancies. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Ullyot

Ted Ullyot attended Harvard as an undergraduate, not Mt. Ida College. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.167 (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to update it yourself, by providing links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (if the article is locked, then please indicate so in your statements), under the principle Wikipedia:Be Bold - Also, it is possible that he could go to more than one undergraduate university, so please consider that as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The current ref (WSJ) says "The 41 year-old Ullyot (Harvard, U. of Chicago law) began his legal career,,,". Does that arrangement of schools mean he went to Harvard as an undergrad, or is that OR. Maybe he left Harvard Law School and then went to U. of Chicageo? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Broadcaster "improving" his own entry on Wikipedia

Listening to the BBC Radio 5 programme Up All Night last night, I heard Cash Peters discussing the changes that he had to his Wikipedia article and elsewhere. From the editing history of the article, he is clearly Monkeynuts54 (talk · contribs). I've reverted the article to a pre-Monkeynuts54 version, added a {{BLPunsourced}} and left what I hope is a suitable message at his talk page. Anything else need doing? Incidentally, those who can use the "listen again" feature on the BBC website will find the discussion at this link, starting at about 1hr 34m 45 s. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits you reverted look 100% appropriate to me at first glance. I fact checked a handful of things (not everything yet) and didn't find anything wrong at all. I am not sure why you used scare quotes around 'improving' as it seems that he did improve the entry, and in a factual manner. He also didn't remove any negative information or do anything else that I would find problematic. Again, this is at first glance, can you give more information that would lead us to conclude that this is a problem?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] Your note to him is very friendly and kind, thank you. And I should add a small clarification. While his edits look fine, and I was able to confirm some of it, it would of course be better to have sources. I think the best overall response to this case is for several of us to turn in and help to improve the biography with good sourcing, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Second that last bit. If we all took the time to be so... polite I can't help thinking some of these auto-biographical editors would be hugely valuable :) kudos Bencherlite --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we might have lost this guy, if this is anything to go by. This would be a pity as he seemed to be fairly committed to following the rules (at least, that's what he told me). I've left a message on his talk page encouraging him to stay, but I don't know if it'll have much effect. The responses to this has been very impressive on most levels, so it would be a pity if he left as a result. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Monkeynuts a user-name violation? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tomasz Schafernaker

I think the section 'Gaffes' should be reconsidered as WP:UNDUE weight. I think this is particularly true in light of the most recent one, raising his middle finger, which seems completely harmless. It is true that the BBC apologized for it, and reported on it. But is it encyclopedic? The other one - referring to the Outer Hebrides as "nowheresville" is probably noteworthy. I'm primarily concerned that the 'gaffes' section is currently about 1/3 of his biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think it is WP:UNDUE given this article on today's Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/aug/18/bbc-weatherman-tomasz-schafernaker Here in the UK, he is primarily known as the weatherman who makes gaffes. --Morus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.117.112 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joel Osteen

• Joel Osteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anonymous IP editor is adding in unsourced original research and refusing to engage in the talk page. I've requested semi-protection for the page.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for one month, as the IP in question wasn't the only one making recent dubious edits. AlexiusHoratius 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Organised crime BLPs

I've had a long-running concern about BLP standards on organised crime biographies. There tend to be several problems, mainly to do with poor sourcing.

1. Some have basically no sourcing
2. Many have little or no inline sourcing whatsoever, so although the fact the person is a convicted criminal may be verified, the strings of allegations in the article are not directly so.
3. Sourcing often consists of a list of a few generic books under a "references" section. No page numbers, and no way of telling if the books back up all, or just bits of the article.
4. A heavy reliance on primary sources. Sometimes this is DOJ prison records (which simply say x is currently incarcerated). Worse, sometimes the sources are purported court transcripts hosted on dubious sites.
5. There is also a high use of "fanboy" sites, who's reliability I can't assess.
6. "External links" are often all there is.

(Additionally, and perhaps less importantly, notability is often questionable. A petty thief with a conviction for murder would normally be ignored, but does putting "mobster" or connecting him to some Italian family, make him more notable? Again, the sources used to established notability are often appearing to be newspaper columns, that seem to be little more than blogs of people who are into mafia stories. Now, I sure many of these BLPs are indeed notable, but then perhaps some review by editors who are not "single issue" here might help general notability standards be reflected.)

If anyone wants to help review you can start looking through Category:Italian-American crime families. Don't get me wrong, there are many excellent articles here.

My own hunting about has led me to delete the following articles under G10 - "negative BLP with poor sourcing". Happy to have these reviewed, or people follow them and identify other problem articles. (I'm also happy for anyone to undelete these and solve the sourcing issues):

• Freddy DiCongilio
• Theodore Persico
• James Gallo
• Monya Elson
• Charles Majuri
• Joseph Tangorra
• Robert Senter
• Giovanni Riggi
• Anthony Rabito
• Lorenzo Nichols

Thanks.--Scott Mac 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also articles on crime families with unreferenced "current members" sections, like this (all redlinks). That's clearly unacceptable.--Scott Mac 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp? One would think they'd want to be known for their criminal exploits and anything 'negative' is in fact positive.. but if someone were to attempt to balance the article by adding, let's say, "He rescues cats from trees on weekends", now THAT's a blp vio! :P -- œ^™ 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• To answer the question How can an article about a criminal be a negative blp?, if it is poorly sourced, it sure would be a problem and Scott Mac has done good, imho. I don't think we are talking about Al Capone type bios here, this is more about fringy, non notable figures, so great care or normal BLP care or whatever should be used here it seems. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that many many years ago we had a complaint from a popular author of gangster history that, in his view, much of our material was simply copied from him. He was pursuing a theory of copyright that was not consistent with the law, i.e. that facts are copyrightable, so if the facts were found originally and written originally by him, no one else could include them. However, at that time, I remember a big cleanup project dealing with this area. It's an area where there are a lot of amateur enthusiasts who range from seriously knowledgeable to being fanboys who are eager but lack knowledge of encyclopedic standards.

    I agree with Scott Mac - articles about Crime Families with "current members" sections sounds really really really bad to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Are you talking about /Archive38#Crime family primary research in userspace where I was accused of being an optimist? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarita Stella

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I am new to wiki but noticed this person and she is someone I actually do know. She is not a person that is notable or that should be on Wikipedia... Her profile is pretty dodgy to say the lease and it would be good is someone wold have a look at it and if possible look at it for deletion.

There are no references to her age, wedding or wedding date it is all heresay. And she isnt notable as for example Cindy Crawford. This girl is a wanna be model from melbourne australia.

Cheers Jack

I agree that the article should be deleted as there is no assertion of notability, and the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I removed the only sourced factoid in the article which involved a charge of assault concerning a "late-night scuffle over a taxi" in December 2005, because that sort of "list of traffic fines" material has no encyclopedic significance. I am watching the article and would be glad if someone takes it to WP:AFD. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks borderline speediable to me so tagged as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsem Tulku

Tsem Tulku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am adding information from Tsem Tulku's official website about his past incarnation as a Tibetan Lama, followed by other sources, which two new users (Nekoboy86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Libzleng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) repeatedly remove. I just checked, and my sources are still verifiable. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page, but that has been removed as well. // Emptymountains (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Tsem Tulku's website has been re-worded once again so that it cannot be cited to verify the point.Emptymountains (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, you'd need a third-party reference for this sort of thing in any case. Self-published sources can't be used for exceptional claims. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

John McGrath (Western Australian politician)

John McGrath (Western Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - information is being repeatedly added that has no veritable source - the reference given is a dead link. There is further information being repeatedly added (relating to a CCC inquiry that cleared John McGrath of all charges) which contradicts the reference that is cited.

Kevin Johnson

What do people think about edits like this? (They're primary sources about alleged misconduct with a teenager, presented with no commentary.) User:Temporarywiki seems pretty determined to include it. Indeed, since 2008, he's done nothing but add negative info to the bio. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's undue weight to randomly insert specific external links about a negative event with no context behind it. And I would say maybe User:Temporarywiki needs a temporary vacation from this subject. -- œ^™ 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to keep an eye on the page. If anyone else want to help out, that'd be great. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Stroud

Someone has been trying to add the name "Chad Stroud" to the Les Stroud article for months, usually at least once a day and sometimes a lot more. The edits are coming from a bunch of different accounts and IP addresses (all resolving to the same geographic region). The article probably needs to be protected for an extended period. SmashTheState (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done 6 months semi. Taking previous page protections into account. -- œ^™ 06:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Little

Can someone bushwhack this article? It's really, really over-the-top, thanks to the edits of user:Skeezwax. I'd bushwhack, but I was brought to the attention of this article by a media outlet, local to the politician.

Does everyone agree that it's worth reverting to pre-Skeezwax, and working from there? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the pre-Skeezwax version is not a lot better. I'm nuking parts of it, hopefully there is reasonable material under there. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yok, I hit it with a big hammer and lots of dust fell off :) pretty much everything is now non-dramatic, however I am still unsure about the criticism section. It seems reasonably notable in the context of his career etc. but I am concerned it may be undue. If someone else take a look that would rock :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job, Errant! I made some further general and npov cleanups. The section is now folded into its parent, and appropriate weight in my view. Along the way I found out he's a candidate in Ottawa's forthcoming election so updated the article and talk banners accordingly, too. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are City Councillors notable enough to have their own articles? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Simon Morris

• Simon Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Controversial businessman, indicted for alleged fraud. Edits by a series of IPs have left this a mess I don't have time to untangle today, and I fear that I may have trimmed back a little too far. Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I killed the material about his arrest/prosecution this article says it was all dropped --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But that self-same material shows that he is talking about suing the police over the accusations and arrest. BLP doesn't mean removing everything if the charges are dropped; it means good, solid, NPOV inclusion of all the information. The stuff you removed should have been supplemented and updated, not suppressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say normally if charges are dropped, material should be removed. Talking about suing isn't suing. If he does file a suit, then the context becomes topical again and should be restored. Yworo (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As above; the charges were dropped and he hasn't actually sued just said he might (WP:FUTURE) - I'd say if he does sue and it makes the news then we have material to work with --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alan Gell

The referencing on this biography of a person involved in capital crime case was abysmal. Most of the links had rotted away. I've fixed those that I can. More attention is required. Also note that renaming this to be about the cases as a whole might be a good idea. There's a fair amount of information about other people that could go into an article about the cases as a whole to make it more rounded and encyclopaedic (example example). Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Can somebody find an English language source for the arrest accusations? I can't find any, and I don't read Swedish. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Expressen calls it a tabloid newspaper, I don't think there is any harm at all from holding off a bit and await more sources. un☯mi 06:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rape is a serious charge and having a tabloid as the only source is a BLP violation in my opinion. This story will develop quickly for sure, so let's take it out for now and wait a few days to see what happens. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is, now, an English source - but the section does not sit well with me.... I've cut a lot of useless/dubious information from it for now. Somone bolder may want to rm most of the rest though --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be cut down to the fact of the arrest order and Assange's denial. But Meco has already served me a 3RR warning... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's now looking like this could be a provebial storm in a teacup with the latest info that the arrest warrant has been cancelled. As I mentioned in the article talk page, I get the feeling this is going to take a very long time to die down though. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is where we ought to say WP:NOTNEWS, and record nothing until the significance can be assessed, at least a few days from now.--Scott Mac 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Someone has helpfully copied the made up claims to the talk page, complete with a heading that fails BLP (see here). I was going to remove the section, but the rape claims are all through the article talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The policy applies to talk pages, as you note. Have some citations while I'm here:
    • Per Nyberg (2010-08-21). "Sweden drops rape accusation against founder of WikiLeaks". CNN.
    • Kristing Grue Lanset and Jon Robin Halle (2010-08-21). "Svensk politi: Assange ikke lenger mistenkt". Aftenposten (in Norwegian).
    • Dan Nilsson, Susanna Baltscheffsky, and Sofia Ström (2010-08-21). "Assange inte längre misstänkt för våldtäkt". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish).{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Uncle G (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Marc Hauser

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

I'd appreciate it if somebody, ideally somebody who knows more about psychology than I do, kept an eye on this page for the next couple of weeks. Hauser is at the center of a scientific misconduct scandal, where Harvard has confirmed his guilt just yesterday. Ray^Talk 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, don't know anything about it, but that article has undue weight issues.--Scott Mac 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Amber Heard

If someone can pay attention to this page: on several occasions, a person - which I suspect to be Arthur Wybrand himself - made changes to include an alleged relationship with Amber Heard, without any source. 84.99.59.96 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As the pending changes trial has expired, community consensus is required for continued usage or expansion. The Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, please contribute your position, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Carnes

This page looks more like self-promotion than containing any actual objective information. 83.160.84.240 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jharal Yow Yeh

Jharal Yow Yeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- This is a small issue, but if I revert any more, I'll be crossing WP:3RR, so I want to make sure this falls under the BLP exception to 3RR before I revert again. User:Malamaua has been adding a variety of information to this article about an Australian rugby player. For most the added info, I can't tell if it's correct or not (like nicknames). However, one specific sentence I believe must stay out of the article; he's been adding variations on the sentence "Is yet to follow in his Uncles foot steps Kevin Yow Yeh." To me, this is both a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as it's an opinion about this player without any references or sources. I warned the article on his talk page here [34] when I reverted the info the third time, but he has re-added one more time. Am I being overly sensitive on this (i.e., can this stay with a cn tag), or does this need to come out per WP:BLP (at which point I'll warn him about 3RR, revert, and report him for edit-warring if he adds again w/in 24 hours). Thank you for your assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is a BLP issue of such importance that 3RR should be crossed. I see that another editor has reverted the latest addition. The text that Malamaua wants to add is simply inappropriate as WP:OR and just not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Laura Schlessinger

Laura Schlessinger has recently publicly complained about untruths in her Wiki-bio. See here.

Looking at the bio, there does seem to be an amazing amount of negative stuff that may be questionable. I've already found statement unsupported by the purported reference. The article needs unbiased eyes, alert to WP:UNDUE, neutrality, and willing to review sources to see if they are reliable, significant, and actually support the text.--Scott Mac 12:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU ANSWER CRITICS WHO SAY YOU SHOULDN'T BE GIVING ADVICE BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD AFFAIRS AND ...

Affairs! What affairs? That's all trumped-up nonsense. And the nude pictures -- the ones that show me from the top up -- those are me. The other ones, the really naughty ones, I don't know how they did it. That's good Photoshopping. The only regret I have is that at the time I didn't think I was cute. Now I look back and say, "Damn, I was cute!"

NO AFFAIRS WITH MARRIED MEN? NO OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCY?

Of course not. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Somebody said that?

IT'S ON YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

Oh. Oh. Yes. Of course. That's the source of truth? Anybody can put anything on there!

BUT IT'S FOOTNOTED.

So it's footnoted to somebody else who made it up. I remember "All the President's Men," where they had to find three good sources before they could say anything. Journalism has left that way behind. Does Wikipedia say I have any illegitimate kids?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 2010-08-22 12:56:50 (UTC)

• Not a fan of Schlessinger, but on this occasion she's right. I have removed a chunk of unsourced material- a citation was given, but it did not support the claims. Somebody should go through this with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately I don't have the time at present. --Slp1 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed more speculation unsupported by sources, but I suspect we've a way to go on this. Help requested. Remember everyone, READ THE SOURCE, don't settle for the fact that there is one.--Scott Mac 13:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've read the source, and what it actually supported was the stuff within the {{cquote}} removed in this edit. All that this means, of course, is that this decision was an unwise one based upon desire for promoting particular views of the subject rather than desire for fully-sourced, well-written, text to replace poor content that had been removed to the talk page for discussion and improvement. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Yebba

An odd one. Allegations of drug addiction, petty crime, armed robbery, prison, all inadequately sourced imo, followed by the writing of an autobiography and screenplays. Hmmm. --86.150.112.150 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)