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.

Alan Stern

This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.124 (talk • contribs)

I'll give it a go, and I'll tag it with {{like resume}} - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Shanbaug

This article is insensitive and offensive in the way it describes a victim who has been in a coma for 37 years. Especially, the line "That "muscle in her mouth" with which she flayed a subordinate for not doing his job no longer receives any signals from her brain" though taken from an article in an obscure magazine is of extremely poor taste and should be unacceptable for international readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.1.26 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read, even without the statement quoted above. At the very least it should be completely rewritten from scratch, and deletion should probably be considered as well. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Crotalus. Largely unsourced, few footnotes. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. wp:ONEVENT would seem to apply. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have renamed this article 1973 attempted murder and robbery of Aruna Shanbaug and trimmed some content and imo its better, although the attack was a one event - coverage and additions have continued up to the present day. I think its a notable case, especially in Bombay - for continued notability the BBC reported on the case as recently as Dec 2009, thirty six years after the incident. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India court admits plea to end life of rape victim - The BBC - 17 December 2009 -

If someone wants to suggest it, there maybe a case to merge to this recently created article that seems to be primarily about her

Euthanasia in India - Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a separate article. The fact that her case was discussed in the Supreme Court of India should put her notability beyond doubt. Compare Tony Bland. Though I note Terri Schiavo no longer has her own biography. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blooded (film)

Contains very harsh accusations against pro- and anti-hunting organizations, with no reliable sourcing that I can spot. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator also created an article about the company that created the movie - Ptarmigan ACP - and uploaded the logo of the film company and three other company related uploads claiming copyright of all four - Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- promo poster - own work - deleted
- soundtrack sample - own work - deleted
- source magma pictures - own work - possible PD-Text?
- logo - own work - deleted

It's an article about a fiction film. And while the film itself may not yet meet WP:NF, that a admitted work of parody or satire acts to disparage the worthy efforts of notable organizations is not a BLP violation. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the "truth" of the content of a fictional film, else such articles on such fictional films as Star Wars would not be allowed. Inclusion is not about trurh, its about verifiability. What we do however care about is whether the film has itself received critial comentary in reliable sources. That's why it currently fails inclusion critiera... not because of its plot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the article has been edited to itself NOT contain any "harsh accusations against pro- and anti-hunting organizations"... an issue easily addressed through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Palin

Resolved

– User:HJ Mitchell Protected Willow Palin - restoring protection. Seems subject is still non-notable (indefinite)

Willow Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article space had been a protected redirect for about 18 months and was just yesterday unprotected at RfPP. I don't believe this was suggested at Talk:Sarah Palin, but a few of us Talk:Sarah_Palin#Willow_Palin have serious misgivings about this individuals' notability. I am seeking input before moving forward with an AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't; notability isn't inherited. It should be prodded and taken to AfD if contested.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. being a daughter of someone notable confers zero notability per se. 2. The onlyother "notablility claim" refers to her appearing on her mom's tv show. 3. The "homophobia" bit is both not nottable, it is tabloidism at its worst. Salon.com is not a great reliable source for contentious claims in a BLP in the first place, and Eonline is even further removed from use as a source. 4. TMZ basically is listed as a csource - but it has essentially no concrete information on the person, and does not qualify as a "biography" by any stretch. The NYT cite gives Willow's year of birth only, and it is a bit of a stretch to list it as a reference. The total relevant part of the AP ref is all of: The Palins' five children are Track, 19; Bristol 17; Willow 14; Piper, 7, and baby Trig. In short, she is not notable by WP standards, the "sources" basically say that she was born!, and nothing else. The gist appears to be the Salon claim of hating gays - and that is clearly BLP1E at most (appearing in your mom's tv show does not make anyone notable). Collect (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction too: just not notable, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as an unambiguous A7. There is nothing there which asserts notability about a minor. BLP trumps TMZ every single time. Horologium (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the redirect Willow Palin should be recreated and protected again, ensuring an attempt to discuss recreation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if the article is recreated first. If it is, I'll make it a protected redirect. I suspect that there will be squawking about the deletion, so I'm inclined to see how that shakes out before taking the next step. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as we are here, I will notify the user that requested un-protection, User:Selket, of this discussion as this is perhaps as good a place as any to discuss recreation or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this should not have been A7'ed. There was clearly an assertion of notability, being on a television show, even if it was "her mom's." The claim that it was "her mom's" tv show is clearly false though, as it was produced by Mark Burnett. There is clear precedent for notability from appearing on a reality show (e.g. Melinda Varga from The Osbournes). It was for that notability and the recent media coverage of her specifically that I created the article. The claim that notability is not inherited is really a strawman argument. She is notable because of her TV roll. She doesn't become un-notable because she has a notable mother. If you think she's not notable enough, or that the sources don't adequately establish the claims of notability made in the article, the route to take is AfD. If you think there is negative unsourced BLP issues, delete those parts. Deleting under A7 was a mistake, and I would request the admin who deleted it to undo the deletion. Second, if there is some special rule about BLP's of minors, I would love to be pointed towards it, because I certainly can't find it. The notability criteria is the same regardless of age unless I'm really missing something. Third, if it's not a "biography" then it needs to be expanded, not deleted. Finally, as for TMZ as a source, I cited that only for her birth-date, but if we would prefer the NYT citation with "(b. 1994)" rather than the TMZ citation with "(b. July 7, 1994)" then I wouldn't really object, although it seems silly. --Selket ^Talk 03:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just noticed Horologium's comment about it being a "coatrack" over at Talk: Sarah Palin. I would like to encourage everyone to assume good faith please, even if it is about a Palin. I created the article, because I thought a redirect was inappropriate, and that's it. --Selket ^Talk 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "biographical" sources really give more than her age - so those sources fail the simple test that they actually back up any claims. Appearing in a single TV show does not meet notability guidelines at all - and the cavil that her mom was not the "producer" has no meaning here. WP does not allow articles on people appearing in a single tv show as themselves, and identified as the daughter of the presenter majes is even less notable. Really. So all we are left with is the twitter bit - which is 1. not notable and 2. BLP1E at best and 3. does not have strong sources as required by WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really might be time to add this article. There is significant coverage even if most of it treats her as a secondary subject. And realistically, it is only a mater of time so we might as well address the real issue instead of the "notability" (scare quotes intended) concern. Editors are worried that it will turn into a BLP violating mess. That only means editors need to watch the article and it might need semi-protection. Calling "notability" is just dodging the bigger issue. BLP worries are of course there but coverage establishes notability and those sources provide enough info to write at the very least a stub.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to actually respond, Johnuniq? I did not say she will be notable. I said she is notable. It is only a matter of time until this article is created (that has nothing to do with crystal) so the real issue needs to be addressed (how to ensure that it does not turn into a BLP violating mess). With the amount of coverage available on the subject it is obvious that fear over how to maintain the article is the real issue since we have more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. We might as well have the real conversation instead of bickering over notability standards (which would be sufficiently addressed if she and her mother were not controversial figures) Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People either agree on what is suitable encyclopedic content or they don't, and I have never seen a case where discussion helped. Yes, attention-seeking politicians with awkward children attract a lot of attention, and the children get attention too. However, I do not regard omg-have-you-heard commentary as indications of what I regard as encyclopedically notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother is notable, but she is not. Notability is not inherited, and simply appearing on a "documentary" television show is not significant enough to establish notability. In addition, it should not have been unprotected. jæs (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was traveling and therefore unable to comment for the last few days. I still think this is the wrong procedure by which to make a decision, but I'm not that invested in it. Anyway, is there a good reason the talk page history is still deleted? Perhaps a note to this discussion might be useful as well? --Selket ^Talk 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no worries - Talk:Willow Palin - 10 March 2011 User:Horologium deleted "Talk:Willow Palin" ‎ (WP:G8: Talk page of a deleted page) - I can only assume that the likelyhood of her achieving notability in the near future is so minimal that a talkpage is more heat than light. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuley Boteach

Shmuley Boteach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is kind of a mess. I found things like two sentences from different parts of an article strung together as a single quotation, a few weasel words, and a blog used a source. I don't really have time to carefully check the whole article, but it could use more eyes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this article and checked the sources. One of the more frequently cited sources is a series of blog posts by Fox News columnist Roger Friedman, which is almost entirely opinion. Among the facts attributed to that article:

That he was "banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." This may or may not be true. I could find no reference on the internet to an organization by this name. There is a synagogue by the name of "United Synagogue", but as far as I can tell, it represents only itself, and there is no reference on its website of a ban of Boteach. (This fact is also attributed to a Guardian article, but the Guardian article makes no such claim.)
That the British Charity Commission "froze the bank accounts" of Boteach's charitable trust in Britain. This is true; the article omits that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use. The issue was concluded amicably, and no charges were brought against Boteach. All of which also appears in the blog post but is omitted from the article.

The article relies on a very odd and eclectic collection of sources, none of which are generally considered reliable by Wikipedia. The fact that he was asked to leave his post as British Shaliach, for example, is attributed to the Jewish times Asia. I could find no reference to this in a British paper, Jewish or otherwise. The paragraph about irregularities in Boteach's British trust is attributed to six sources. Two of these are blogs, one is the Friedman column from Fox News (also a blog), and two are pop music sites. The one reliable source, a Guardian article about Boteach, makes no mention of the episode. Other sources include the Canadian Michael Jackson fanclub, the AV club, which is the entertainment news site of the Onion, and another Jackson fanclub called MJEOL.com

Some of the sources, such as the Guardian article and an article in the Slate, an online daily magazine owned by the Washington Post, are not at all negative about Boteach, but have been carefully pruned for negative comments in this article.

In sum, the article as it now stands is, in my opinion, uninformed on legal issues though it may be, actionable, and should be shorne dramatically and immediately. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would strongly disagree - Is Fox News not a reliable media source ? Of course they are and so too is The Guardian, and the Jewish Times of Asia. You may not like the facts, but surely they are facts.

The article by Roger Friedman is factual - its based on British reports and research.... United Synagogues of Britain is a well known umbrella organization

If you'd like to add that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use is fine - He wrongfly withdrew charity money. Thats factual and can be added.

None are reliable ? The British papers arent reliable nor is Fox News ?

Some of your comments are ok - but I do believe we 1st need to address the repeated single user vandalism account which is vandalising the user page repeatedly. Can we agree to a lock until this is resolved ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox news site includes both news articles, which can generally be considered reliable, and opinion columns, which are essentially blogs and are not considered a reliable source of information (of course, they are reliable sources for quoting someone's opinion, but not facts). A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" should not be considered a reliable source for information about a living person, since the title itself (and, in fact, the rest of the article in its entirety) displays a clear and, I might say, venomous, bias.

The Guardian is most certainly a reliable source. However, the Guardian article says nothing to support the statements attributed to it in the article. For example, the article says, "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." What the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." Not the same by a long shot.

As regards the United Synagogues of Britain, I am a little wiser now. There is an organization called "United Synagogue of Britain", which is a union of orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. I can believe the article's claim that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, though the claim is currently unsupported by a reliable source and must therefore be removed. However, in any case, that organization represents only the Orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. There are also Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain, none of which are affected by United Synagogue's alleged ban. Therefore, the statement in the article is patently false, and probably libellous.

The Jewish Times Asia may well be a reliable source for things happening in the Jewish community of Asia. To rely on it for information on events in Britain is really stretching the limits of reliability. For a piece of information so imflammatory - that he was forced to resign his post as Britain Shaliach because he invited Rabin to speak - you should certainly be able to find a reliable British source (if it is true).

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldnt A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" be considered reliable ? Meshugah means crazy.... and besides that whats so out there ? And yes perhaps theres bias - Werent many biased against MJ when he was accused of molesting children ? You can remove The Guardian as the source, but that doesnt mean you can remove the statement about "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." Fox News says it - What would you propose to amend it to ? As you say the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." If we agree that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, Do you believe Boteach could be a rabbi in a Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain ? They'd take him or vice versa ? Should we change it to say Roger Friedman a columnist for Fox News says ? I would agree to that.

Absurd to say The Jewish Times Asia is only reliable for the Jewish community of Asia - is The New York Post only reliable for New York ? or The Jerusalem Post only for Jerusalem ?

Condemned by Crown Heights - http://www.slate.com/id/103323/ Movement severed ties with Shmuley: http://www.atlantajewish.com/content/112005/shmuley.html Boteach's official break with Chabad came not as a result of his writings about sex, but before. A few months after the rebbe's death in 1994, he invited Yitzhak Rabin to speak at a forum. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10385/orthodox-equivalent-of-dr-ruth-to-dive-into-spicy-sex-at-mjcc/

Boteach himself saying he was forced "to relinquish my position as his emissary in Oxford" (He says is because of Booker"... many others say differently...If youd like to take his position that he was removed because of the thousands of non-Jews who had joined our organization is fine too. http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=17270&catid=55

And its not inflamatory to say he was forced to resign after the facts above ? if you'd like to make changes lets discuss 1st... Jonathangluck (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can change this sentence: After inviting left wing politician Yitzhak Rabin to speak, despite protests from the Chabad movement leadership, he was asked finally to leave his posting as shaliach.[8]

Can make it Roger Friedman a Fox news columnist rather than Fox News if thats better ?

Any other issues ? Seperately I am concerned about the continued single user vandalism and would like a lock on page. Jonathangluck (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some comments from others on this noticeboard more familiar with BLP issues than I. To me, this article looks like a not-so-subtle smear of a popular if controversial religious figure. But almost all the people I have written about on the Wikipedia have been dead these few hundred years, so I don't consider myself an authority. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravpapa asked me to comment on this. Having just read through the article, it is a very poor example of a BLP. Citing the The Sun (United Kingdom) as a source for negative and controversial information about a living person?!? Jonathan, doesn't it occur to you that when an article used as a reference has the text "spicy sex" in its headline, and not as part of quoting a third party, that may not be an especially reliable source? Why is the Fox news columnist's opinion relevant? The extensive quotes from Michael Jackson fan websites etc are also completely unnecessary. The majority of the article reads as a thinly disguised attack piece. Permitting three sentences of "Awards and recognition" doesn't change that. As for needing to lock the article, User:Spaghettiear got a 7 day block starting this afternoon, so there is no crisis there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user: shalominthehome once again vandalised - Will he also be blocked ? Controversial information ? Thats his calling card ? He has had 2 financial scandals ? The Sun is a major paper ? Why is Fox News relevant about a Rabbi close to Michael Jackson ? Are you joking ? Lets get some more opinions Jonathangluck (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun does indeed sell many copies, but it is a low-end tabloid given to sensationalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. That's according to our policy on WP:BLP, which takes precedence over guidelines like WP:RS. (Although I don't consider The Sun to be a reliable source for anything other than what opinion The Sun had on an issue.) We write conservatively about living people, even living people who are controversial and court publicity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as regards "once again vandalised" -- actually shalominthehome last edited the article the day before yesterday, in my timezone, and has received a whole bunch of advice on his talk page since then. They already have the helpful menu of handy links. Will he be blocked? I have no idea, but if he continues to edit the article disruptively then presumably he will be. That's not a crisis, but having negative controversial statements about a living person sourced only to The Sun and to Michael Jackson fan websites, is a crisis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it is a low end tabloid ? You do ? Its the 10th largest newspaper in the world and surely has libel concerns as well.. Its factual, as is Fox News. Can write conservatively as you wish, Boteach has been censured by governments in both the UK and US for financial misgivings regarding charities.... I dont object to some of what you are saying - Care to propose more specifics ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am missing this issue with the Sun - I see the Independent and Guardian as major sources - Where do you see The Sun ? Rather than talking hypothetical, what do you propose (and regarding your comment about Spicy Sex, you are aware thats a reference to Boteachs book which is relevant ?) ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the potentially libellous material and dubious sources from the article. It now meets, in my opinion, Wikipedia BLP standards.

The article still needs a lot of work to include material, mostly from Boteach's recent activities, but at least it is no longer grounds for a lawsuit.

Thanks to TheInterior, Deryck C, and Demiurge1000 for their help and support. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following numerous attempts by Jonathangluck to restore libellous material to the article, I have asked for administrator intervention here --Ravpapa (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bobby gonzalez

I responded to some edits but I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Can you look at my comments and tell me if they have been seen before and if I'm doing this right? Still trying to get some disparaging statements removed. Lindag3333 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another user reverted all of your edits under Wikipedia rules which require that articles be neutral and based on reliable independent sources. Your additions to the article did not refer to any sources. Also, you have the same last name as the subject and may have a conflict of interest editing this article if related to him. I suggest rather than making any more changes, you post requested edits on the article's talk page, quoting reliable sources, so that other users may comment and make the changes on your behalf if they are appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Addington

Could an administrator who has the ability to lock articles from being edited unless a user is logged in please look at the recent edit history of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Addington&action=history There has been a credible (at least to me) allegation that the subject of the BLP (or someone close to him professionally, at say The Heritage Foundation, may be tinkering with the article themselves, using either an "SPA" (single purpose account such as User:MuqtadaAbu's edit on May 4, 2009) or an unregistered, shifting IP address. Although Dick Cheney no longer holds elective office, the subject of this article remains highly influential in a low-profile way at The Heritage Foundation, which along with the American Enterprise Institute is one of the top conservative "think tanks" where the party not currently holding power in the White House readies an "administration in waiting" for when it does win another election. The subject of this BLP was behind the scenes in two of the Bush Adminstration's most controversial lingering legal controversies, namely the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees in the "war on terror" and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.I would recommend at least locking the article so only logged-in users can edit it, or perhaps the additional level where only verified editors have their edits made immediately visible. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of the article, which would prevent IP users from editing, can be requested at WP:articles for protection. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suze Orman

Resolved

– no WP:BLP action required - editing issue only - new user has been provided with a handy list of links to assist them

Susan Orman has told millions of people to consoladate their student loan to help better their credit; however by doing so will increase the interest rate from your low 3.5% reducable to 2.75% raising interest to 7.25% reducable to 6.75%... Do not listen to this reasoning on school loans unless you want to add 30 to 150,000 dollars to your student loans. Per: Sally mae/ FASFA. Read your contract before following this Susan Ormans advice.. You will be the better for leaving the loan as it is as designed by the goverment who this time knows best.. ck it out...and good luck to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoutofdebt (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling this to our attention. Per Wikipedia rules, changes to articles must be based on reliable independent sources, and not on the opinions of individual editors, which are hard for us to evaluate. If "Sally MAE/RSFA" is a source, please give us the details, such as a web link or publication; or please provide some other source for this information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lim

There appears to be an author intent on sharing negative slander and libelous material against Dr.Lim based on her recent court case (still unresolved). The case which is to continue on 28th March has yet to hear any defensive testimony or evidence. The cited article from the other Author is poorly researched, based purely on rumor rather than unsealed court documents from the case which paint a very different picture. The motivation for posting this negative and unproven information is purely sensationalist, and given that there has not been a result to the court case, the inference of posting is decidedly towards guilt since people are given to believe accusations. Dr.Lim is a highly notable professional in the medical field, and having been through all the court documents its painfully clear she is correct, and in fact is was she who took the Government body to High Court to defend her rights. It is coming out now that the entire case was politically motivated, thus the inference is to protect Dr.Lim until the case is resolved, at which time it is ethically acceptable to post the FACTS about the case, rather than post the ACCUSATIONS which damage a prominent Doctor's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text currently in the article is cited to an article in The Straits Times. I pared down some of the more sensational allegations that were in an old version of the text, but I see no reason not to include the allegations, since they have been reported in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it down a little more, the case is not even opened yet they are just talking about opening a case, I don't know what went on at the article but a lot of content was removed. I have also added a few ref tags and tidied a little and commented on the Talk:Susan Lim - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lerner

Joseph Lerner is a Canadian politician whose article has been subjected in the past to promotional and problematic editing (I had to block one editor for legal threats. I'd appreciate another eye or two on it as there seem to still be problems. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trimed back a lot of stuff not supported by secondary sources. This article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bjugstad

Mike and Janeen Bjugstad DO NOT have 3 children. They have 2, Abbie ans Nick. Please make that change. Thank you, Mike Bjugstad [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.224.18 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the information entirely, since it does not seem to be included in the source given as a citation. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Vella

Dear Editors, could you please make minor corrections to your page as per subject caption. Glen Vella was born in 1983. His official website has changed to www.maltaeurovision2011.com. The official facebook fan page is www.facebook.com//profile.php?id=100001970225687. Kindly make changes with urgency as you are directing the media to outdated information. You can confirm this information by contacting the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Malta. Best regards,Daniel d'Anastasi Media and PR Malta Eurovision 2011 Team daniel.danastasi@gmail.com [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.73.192 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I will have a look for you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

facebook one

facebook two

How do you tell if a facebook is official? Nither seem flagged in any way..Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange

This edit is troubling: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=418294668&oldid=418293408 I think it's POV and it's repeating accusations that have not been evaluated by a court yet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also questionable and possibly misleading to use the term "sexual assault" in the section title and in the article's lead-in without providing the details that this refers to condom use and not common rape or beating, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is repeating the undisputed statement that these allegations have been made. How exactly is that POV? And rape is one of the allegations.

There are currently serious problems on the Assange article, and at Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange‎, caused by attempts to play down the nature of the allegations, and to cast aspersions on the alleged victims, the police, and anyone else that it suits this blatant POV-pushing agenda to attack, with a complete disregard for WP:BLP policy (and possibly, libel laws too). I'd like to see a few more editors watching these articles, with the objective of constraining this sensitive issue to factual matters, rather than spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that this is only about condom use is not NPOV. The claims that this refers to condom use is the version put forth by the defence. When the prosecutors and the extradition judge use the word rape they are refering to an alleged instance of Assange initiating sex with a sleeping woman. The English judge ruled that these allegations, if true, were considered rape in both English and Swedish law. On top of that, there is an allegation of Assange using his body weight to hold a woman down. Again, that has nothing to do with condoms. We might not like or agree with the allegations, but the ruling of the judge is a fact, not an opinion. We should present both the prosecutor's and the defence's side. Mbulle (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather confusing because although the word "abusive" sounds more serious, the women have said the sex became abusive, but they have not claimed that they withheld consent at any point. I do think it is important to make this clear, although I am not sure how. It's not just to do with a condom though. One of the woman says she was still "half-asleep" when Assange initiated more sex with her the following morning. I think there needs to be some way that we can make clear that neither woman is claiming to have said "no" and been ignored at any time. For example, the statement that Assange was "using his body weight to hold a woman down" might imply that this was against her consent, when in fact she has not alleged that she told him to stop. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing confusing about the wording of the allegations as presented to the English court - and the judge stated that one of these would constitute rape under English law. These are the facts. Your opinions on what you think occurred are utterly irrelevant. You might well benefit from looking up the word 'consent' in a dictionary, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Greg. I have changed the section header and the sentence. I changed assault to improprieties. The sentence was more problematic becuase it really didn't conform to the source. Unfortunately, the source was a series of factual allegations by the women, and it was almost impossible to put them in a single category. Without actually listing the allegations (refusal to wear a condom, refusal to take a test, pinning a woman down who wanted to retrieve a condom, etc.), it was really hard to create a sentence from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: with regard to the sentence (not the header), each source has to support the assertion. It wasn't a function of Greg's opinion as to what happened - it's what the source says or doesn't say. The word in the header is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm surprised, but my changes didn't last long (typical in highly contentious articles). Unfortunately, the editor backed out everything I did, even though he complained only about the word "improprieties" (called it prudishly Victorian - heh) in his edit summary. I decided not to fight the word "assault" in the section header and undid the reversion but restored the word "assault". I have no idea how long even that will last, but the sentence in the section was absolutely wrong, even if one doesn't like my rewording.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it "assault" I reverted to? I thought it would be to "misconduct"; changing that right away. I think that word fits best the description, and is most middle of the road between the allegations of the two parties. I hope I didn't hurt your amour propre too much with the Victoriana :) ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember I wrote "abusive after sex which was initially consensual"; I think the exact details of the accusations, like the condom, should be developped in detail in the SJAvJA article; that's what's it for after all. Perhaps this sentence could be amended to "His two accusers charge that some of the sex that began consensually developeded into acts they felt were non-consensual and abusive~". That conveys better the disagreement between the two parties. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "misconduct" is just right, and, no, you didn't offend me, I just found your comment amusing. As for the sentence, I see no support in the source for saying that the sex became nonconsensual or abusive. If you can point to a passage or passages that say that, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The exact problem is that there is an attempt to try the case in the article and it hasn't even got off the ground, there is clearly pre judicial considerations, all the minor details and attempting to find a way to say she never actually said no and shall we call it rape when swedish rape is different to everyone else's rape is what is causing all the disruption. Just keep it simple, there are plenty of tabloids that are reporting such like. Just stick to the simple notable details. Assange is wanted in Sweden for in relation to sexual allegations, assaange was arrested in England after a extradition request from Sweden,assange was at extradition hearing and the Judge upheld the request, assange appealed, and the outcome was...? Thats it, just redirect the legal article and add that to assanges blp and take a break. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It isn't our job to take sides, and spin the allegations down to what we think actually happened - that is a breach of basic Wikipedia principles. We should report what was alleged (in minimum necessary detail), and report that the allegations have been denied (again, in minimum necessary detail). We should report the facts regarding the ongoing legal case (the extradition). That is all. We don't need gossip, rumour, and attempts to smear others. Just the facts.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob and Andy. That would mean removing from the Assange article his denial and the accusers' allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Andy's change of the section header to "Allegations of rape, coercion and harassment". Even assuming there've been reports that the women alleged those things (and some of them are nebulous - what is harassment? what is coercion? what definition of rape are we using?), it doesn't belong in a BLP header unless the accusations have been substantiated. What if someone accused him of murder? Would just the fact that we say "allegation of murder" make it acceptable? Maybe we should avoid this issue completely and change the section header to "Swedish extradition" or something similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is from the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article, which in turn sources it to the arrest warrant. The warrant is clearly the best source for the allegations which relate to the extradition case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the header in the Assange article and with the sources in the Assange article, the header wording you chose is not, uh, warranted. A more in-depth treatment in the main article is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with minimum necessary detail; I see no reason not to include as much as allowed per wp:v, wp:rs and wp:blp? For one there's hardly any point in having a whole separate article if it sounds like the summary of the police report. An encyclopedic should have ideally a mix of entertaining trivium and enlightening quadrivium; see the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Featured article advice, in particular, point #2: it's comprehensive. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're gonna use words like trivium and quadrivium, who can argue with that? For the moment, the Swedish stuff shouldn't get a lot of coverage in the article, particularly because it's covered in another article in more depth. That doesn't conflict with point #2 in the FA advice ("A featured article should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic.").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might not have followed the trial article so closely. Material disappears from the biography, but does not reappear at the other article, but vanishes in some limbo inbetween. What with all the removing for some reason or other there's hardly anything left. Sins of ommission are often worse that sins commission when it comes to neutrality, because if something is there that's partial you see it, whether if it's missing you don't notice anything. I've begun to think maybe a merge back would be for the better. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The spin-off article was created as a POV-fork, and it has done nothing but cause trouble since. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a problem if the editing climate was more cooperative. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "sex with a sleeping woman" charge, I believe one source said the sleeping woman's reported response to Assange was "are you wearing anything?" If that account is true, it would appear she wasn't objecting to sex but to condomless sex. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, our job is not to find evidence and make a judgement on what happened. We should report the allegations put forward by the prosecution in hearing, and the defence put forward by Assange's defence in the hearing. All evidence that is put forward outside the courts is just speculation and trial by media/wikipedia. Mbulle (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should step back and bear in mind that at this point we have only an arrest warrant and an extradition in response to that warrant. I don't know much about the Swedish justice system, but if this were in the U.S., it is unlikely we would report details of what victims say after a mere arrest. We would wait at least until a person was charged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Thompson

Resolved

– small write to remove a cut and copy violation and the education ambiguity

Appears to contain contradictory information. The (Early life) phrase "she graduated from high school at 16" may contradict the later (Journalism career) phrase "by earning her GED." Since only individuals not earning a high school diploma may take the GED tests, one phrase or the other must be incorrect. I have not been able to verify either phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewartx5 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, heres the wayback to the high school drop out claim, written by Cory Johnson and published by The Industry Standard, seems a bit of an op ed to me, at the time she was getting some flak and jealousy type reports from people in the media because of what they conceived as her undue rise to high office. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lerner

Thank you Doughweller and 4meter4 for keeping an eye on Lerner's bio. If you look at my talk page you would learn that I am a new contributor with not much experience. Furthermore, each time that I have made a correction to this specific article I have described the nature of the change in my talk page. If you refer to my talk page and see my last edit of Lerner's bio, you would precisely see that I have removed a piece of information that I thought it had a promotional nature. At the same time, I noticed that some of the stubs are removed from Lerner's bio "North American composer" and "Poli-bio-stub". Lerner is a Canadian composer that is fact. Therefore, he is a North American composer. Lerner's bio also falls into the "Poli-bio-stub", which is a fact as well. I am going to put the stubs back. If you decide to remove them then I respect your choices. My question is: if there are enough reasons that we so meticulously need to monitor this specific bio and spend time and energy on it, then why bother. Why not just put it for deletion and get rid of it. (Watcherpost (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Watcherpost. Thanks for your contributions. He looks clearly wiki notable to me, the minimum requirement is WP:GNG and the changes of deletion at this point would be minimal indeed. As for the stub templates, they can be removed and usually are in such situations as the article develops, as a note, if you want to lets other users know you have made an edit and why, the best place for that is the article talkpage Talk:Joseph Lerner .Its not a stub any more but it is in need of some wikification if anyone is interested in tidying it up a bit. As you didn't seem to have one, I have left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage, happy editing. Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Off2riorob (talk) for the advise and more so for leaving a "menu of helpful links" on my talk page. (Watcherpost (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Pallab Ghosh

Yesterday I restored several deleted sections containing criticism of the subject after realising they were removed by an IP address registered to the subject's employer, the BBC — see also Talk:Pallab Ghosh#Possible conflict of interest. I've just self-reverted though, as I've realised not all this material was reliably sourced, as I first thought, and perhaps other parts could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no current editing dispute, but I'd appreciate if others took a look today as this article is experiencing a sudden spike in its page views and I'm planning a short Wikibreak as I'm somewhat tired and stressed and seem to be making mistakes. Thanks, --Qwfp (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, no biggie. Its the ability to review and correct them that is important. The BLP was being coatracked by undue G.M. food add-ons, he is science editor but way back in 2007 an 82 IP range increased GM coverage to around three quarters of the biography content, undue and coatracky reporting. Its imo better at some other article where it probably is already covered anyways, so imo it did need trimming as to the position now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riyo Mori

I have noticed that an IP added information about the death of Miss Universe 2007 Riyo Mori. According to that she is one of the victims of the Earthquake in Japan yesterday. Anyone having any information about that or can we rule it out as pure speculation or a silly rumour?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all in a google search. As per blp, an uncited death claim that stayed in the article for nine hours on a BLP with - 30 watchers is completely unacceptable. After such an edit to a BLP I would suggest adding pending protection. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Anspach

I think this is a case of WP:Oneevent. This is a person who is famous only for his legal actions against the makers of Monopoly. The current content of the page probably should be entirely removed and has lots of contentious information.

There is an article on "his" game Anti-Monopoly which from a board game perspective would count solely as a variant. If it was connect to any other board game than monopoly it would be clear to AfD both pages and reduce the section in History of Monopoly to what is verifiable. The article had no RS I was able to add a RS quickly due to the Monopoly connection so I was looking for some advice.Tetron76 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbed the Anspach article, which read like an anti-Parker Brothers screed and contained assertions not supported by the sole reliable reference, the Wall Street Journal. To the extent this other material was sourced to Anspach's XLibris book, it is banned under WP:SPS as self published contentious material about third parties. I also fixed the Anti-monopoly article by trimming it and citing the Wall Street Journal. I think Anspach is probably not an example of one event as he is potentially notable both for introducing the anti-Monopoly game and then being sued by Parker Brothers. The lawsuit itself last many years and involved separate events such as trials, appeals and a settlement. However, he may not have stand alone notability and perhaps the Anspach article should be merged to "Anti-Monopoly" or both to the appropriate article on the history of Monopoly. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now much improved. I guess the next step is to deal with the Anti-Monopoly which would no longer be BLP/

The one eventissue for me is he would not pass the board game designer criteria.

The game is so similar to monopoly that you could use a monopoly set to play the game.
Many variants of games don't get mentioned at all i.e. Diplomacy (game)
It was not the first game to work on the principle of reversing the monopoly objective
He could have made some minor changes to layout and name and have a legal version of the game.
Hasbro own the rights to Anti-Monopoly as trademark
The Anti-monopoly game in its current incarnation would count as self published.
Triopoly without a page has more novelty (cannot link due to blacklist)

The game was clearly renamed with a view to getting sued both for copyright and trademark infringement. I guess with a view to exploit the most valuable brand in games but the RS do not cover the story in this light but it is difficult to see this as more than one thing. Tetron76 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peaches Geldof

Resolved

– as per User:A man alone's comment accepting the compromise content I am marking as resolved. Special thanks to User:Bbb23 for his input and assistance in arriving at this position

A user User:A man alone is desirous to add tabloid reports of unconfirmed claims that were posted to facebook that she allegedly used heroin. The story was connected to the loss of a contract with ultimo and there were semi naked / naked pictures of the subject that are were clearly her, Ultimo withdrew the contract with no mention of the heroin allegations, just stating that they wanted a good role model and the subject had slipped below their expectations. There is some recent related discussion on the talkpage Talk:Peaches_Geldof#Alledged Heroin use claim and there were low level reports of this facebook claim of heroin use but no confirmation and the subject strongly denied it. A fate sold a story to the press, users are claiming on the talkpage that as she didn't sue The Sun Newspaper that it is ok to repeat the unconfirmed controversial claims - if the company had commented in their statement that they were removing here contract because of unconfirmed allegations of heroin use posted on facebook and repeated in tabloid press then I could see a possible reason to add the claims but without that they are just , date claims heroin use denied by the subject, imo this violates the request from BLP policy to report conservatively and that controversial claims require the highest quality of citation. The user wanting to add this content has now after my requests not to add it has moved to this ...

Peaches was subsequently dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures and a story alledging heroin use were posted on the internet. Mone said of the decision "As a brand that targets young women, we feel it is impossible for Peaches to continue."http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2912431/Peaches-Geldof-has-been-dumped-as-a-face-of-Ultimo-after-sex-and-drugs-allegations.html and that "Miss Ultimo is a brand geared towards a young female audience and as a company we have a social responsibility to ensure we are promoting only positive role models that young women can aspire to." Ultimo made no clarification over the exact reasoning behind her dismissal from the brand - whether it was due to the nude pictures, or alleged Heroin use was not specified by either Mone or in any subsequent press releases.

He is correct that ultimo didn't specify exactly any reason exactly - they would hardly say, as a date of Geldoffs has posted naked pictures of her on facebook and sold an unconfirmed story t the tabloid press claiming Geldoff had a heroin fueled night of passionate sex would they... and neither should we. - as I said, its basically like adding a date sold his story to a british tabloid newspaper and claimed Geldof took heroin, imo such low quality controversial claims are a clear violation of the standard BLP policy requests. I am attempting a compromise by leaving the Sun citation in the article but not publishing the unconfirmed heroin use through wikipedia, see here for that compromise position Peaches Geldof#Career - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, The Sun reports about the nude pictures on the Internet and about the heroin use. They report and quote what Ultimo did. At the moment, the Geldof article reports on the nude pictures and the Ultimo quotes but not on the heroin use. You're saying The Sun, as a source, is of low quality and that "unconfirmed" heroin allegations shouldn't be included in the article. Following that logic, why should the article report on the nude pictures? The Ultimo quotes don't mention the nude pictures or the heroin. Is the only difference that there are pictures in The Sun article that seem to confirm that allegation? I guess I don't get it. Seems like if one can be cited, so can the other. Or maybe neither should be cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of her are clearly confirm-able as her, it is her in the pictures that is indisputable and widely citable. After the pictures and the story were reported her contract was withdrawn - the company did not assert that this was because of any unconfirmed allegations that this man claimed the subject used heroin. Thats the question you need to consider really, do you think we should add that this man sold a story to the British tabloid press alleging that subject of the story used heroin. The Sun reported that John sold them a story and claimed the subject of the BLP used heroin. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make the case that the pictures are confirmed but the heroin is only due to a third-party accusation for profit, then I agree. I wouldn't deflect the issue, though, by discussing the dubious reliability of The Sun, no matter how true it is. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't got the diff (I will look for it if anyone wants to see it) but Jimmy said recently that such publications as The Sun Newspaper and the Daily Mirror should not be used to cite any content in a BLP, never mind anything controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the argumentum ad Cambria there, Rob.

An obvious thing to ask is: where else has this been reported? This is a fairly famous person, so if other news outlets haven't widely published the story then we should probably be equally as wary. If they have, then maybe there's a case that we can too. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wales doesn't set Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy does. There were many reports in various English newspapers (I'm not sure which ones are considered "tabloids" and which are considered "reputable"). See The Independent; and Mirror. As well as reports from outside England: see One India. The language in each is similar, so the articles are probably to some extent circular. Looks to me like the report stems from someone named Ben Mills (who's John?) who (1) claims he had sex with her (2) posted the pictures on the Net; and (3) claims they both took heroin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say: use the Independent, since that's the most reputable of those linked to above and follow the wording they use fairly closely. I think it's interesting that the denial in the report (which should also get a mention) is very specific: "...that our client was carrying and injecting heroin...". But that's just BTW. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The denial by her in One India is also not a complete denial: "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another newspaper source - The Daily Mail: [1], and for the benefit of Rob, who seems to be in denial over the existence of the allegations, here's a direct quote from the article: "Last night, Peaches' lawyers said: 'The incident and photos concern private issues and activity; the photographs were taken for private purposes only.'

They added: 'The allegations that our client was carrying and injecting heroin are denied, our client having consumed alcohol with the other individual leading to the "highs" described and portrayed in the photographs."

Now that's a direct quote from her own lawyers referencing drug use claims.

I should add here that I'm not claiming that the act happened, nor that it was even the reason she was dropped from Ultimo - all I'm trying to put forward is that a specific allegation of drug use was made, and was subsequently reported in the media - as it was.

I also note that somewhat ironically Rob has seen fit to add a 3RR warning to my talk page [2], despite having reverted 4 times himself:

Although Rob may claim that he has fulfilled the section under Leeway for BLP articles, this is based on his assertation that either a) the allegation simply never happened, or b) that any sources for it are not worthy. I believe him to be wrong in both cases. a_man_alone (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation did happen I have not disputed that at all, the coverage of the heroin injecting claims were not covered by all the press, some of them did not repeat those claims. A guy she had a date with sold a story to the press and sold pictures of Peaches semi naked and said she was taking heroin. This is undeniable and some of the press covered the drug allegations, she denied it, the guy flew out of the country. The quality press did not cover the unconfirmed allegations of injecting heroin and we shouldn't either. We don't add that Harry is a suspected cocaine abuser or Jane is allegedly according to a friend of theirs a drug addict. If the company had mentioned anything about drugs when they withdrew the contract then we would have a reason to include it but they didn't so its titillation and unconfirmed allegations from someone that sold his story to the tabloid press. Please remember - "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." -

We are not obliged to cover all allegations about living people that appear in the lower reaches of the press, it was at some point also attempted to add that she was a prostitute, as it had a citation, this allegation was later taken to court http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8454088.stm and this was also in the BLP for a while that she had the same drug dealer as Amy whinehouse http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1124313.ece - we should rise above that level of reporting and as ultimo didn't cite any drug allegations in their statement as a reason to withdraw the contract then we have no reason to repeat that either. If users like that sort of unconfirmed allegation then they can click on the external - as its covered in the BLP now its plenty of detail and covers the contract withdrawal or decision not to extend it in a conservative manner. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unconfirmed allegation. Please stop using that term in your arguments - it's deceptive. What happened in the allegation has not been confirmed, but the allegation itself is confirmed - and the inclusion of the allegation is what I'm advocating. Unlike the prostitution label this claim has not been contested any further than a statement put out by her lawyers, subsequently printed by several newspapers, including the Sun, and The Daily Mail. Do you consider the Daily Mail newspaper to also be at the lower reaches of the press? Coverage does not have to be "by all the press" to be notable. Again, I'm not insisting that the drug use claim was influential in her dismissal from Ultimo, but I do believe (just as you believe that 3RR doesn't apply to you in this case,) that this was a valid addition to the article. I still do. Whilst BLP does indeed say that we should be conservative, that does not mean everything you read about people should be sugar-coated, and ignore the less salubrious things they have either done, or been accused of.

In fact, fuelled by this topic, and having looked deeper into Peaches history, it seems that drug abuse, both alleged, and confirmed [7][8] is not a new thing for her - and yet it is completely missing from the article. Given that this is not an isolated incident, perhaps an entire section, or subsection commenting on the issues may be in order? a_man_alone (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add to BLP article content like - there have been unconfirmed allegations and claims in the press that the subject takes drugs. - In the guardian interview - In an interview in January 2009 when asked if she had taken drugs Geldof replied, "Yes, I have had experiences, and a few of those experiences were unsavoury, not ones I want to repeat, but I was growing up. I wanted the experience.", when asked if the experiences were frightening she said, "'No. It made me feel sick. I wasn't hugely into drugs, and I'm sober now." - such an addition would also be imo trivia and unless drugs and use of drugs are part of her notability, imo such an addition would be trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has way too much content detailing at length the reported embarassing behavior of various celebrities, a problem that's particularly conspicuous in dealing with lower-grade Brith femal public figures. Most episodes of drug use, public intoxication, sexual encounters, domestic debacles, and such are utterly without encyclopedic significance and shouldn't be included in articles. Rob is entirely right to argue that simply showing such content is RS-verifiable does not automatically justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia article; we have different standards than the celebrity press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of embarrassing behavior by celebrities, which is by no means restricted to British females (see, e.g., Sheen and Lohan), misses the point, which, in my view, is a very narrow one. The notable event for Geldof is that Ultimo terminated her contract. Because the language used by Ultimo was non-specific as to the basis or bases for the termination, the article begged some context. The termination followed reports of posting nude pictures of her on the Internet and drug use. Geldof and her representatives responded to these allegations. No one has yet proved to my satisfaction that the allegations of the nude pictures is "more confirmed" than the allegations of the drug use. I agree that we shouldn't assert allegations of drug use, whether confirmed or not, just to put the press discusses them (Rob's last example), but, in this case, there is a connection to a notable event.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, what about, Peaches was subsequently dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were posted on the internet. - this includes the drug use allegation that she has commented on in other interviews but doesn't give it much weight by naming the alleged drug? Users wanting more excitement can go to the external. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with something similar to that: either (1) Ultimo terminated Geldof's contact after the posting of nude pictures of her on the Internet and allegations of drug use or (2) Ultimo terminated Geldof's contact after someone posted nude pictures of her on the Internet and alleged they had used drugs together. Did the guy post the drug use allegations on the Internet? I couldn't find anything that clearly said that. Also, I wouldn't cite to the Sun article (mainly because of the pictues) when we have other sources that aren't so sensationalistic we can use.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember, the guy, originally posted to his facebook page, pics and some of the story, the viral aspect kicked in and he pulled the facebook and sold the story. I agree we should remove the Sun and use perhaps the Independent source is the highest quality publication, - perhaps we should also add her lawyer denial but I don't feel its necessary. - "

Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were posted on the internet and published in the media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/peaches-geldof-dropped-by-lingerie-company-ultimo-1930510.html|title=Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo|publisher=[[The Independant]]|date=March 29, 2010|accessdate=March 13, 2011}},<ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to quibble, but the Independent says nothing about the nude pictures, addresses the drug allegations only in the denial, and doesn't clearly say the drug allegations were posted on the Internet (the quote from her lawyers says "our client having consumed alcohol with the other individual leading to the 'highs' described and portrayed in the photographs"). I think we should cite to the Mirror and to One India to give a more comprehensive report, and I still don't see why we have to say that the drug allegations were posted on the Internet if we have no real source in support of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were published in the media.

Perhaps we should just leave The Sun Newspaper, its been there long long time anyways and the The Daily Mirror is no better at all, the Oneindia.in is not much better, an on line newsite. So actually we don't have any quality citations for this. That Sun article is awful and does need to come out and the mirror article starts"Sir Bob's daughter was "dropped with immediate effect" - apparently just like her knickers." - lets just use the independant and report only wahats in that, these other citations don't belong in a BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after allegations of drug use and nude pictures of her were posted on the internet and published in the media. Geldof denied the claims and said, "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/peaches-geldof-dropped-by-lingerie-company-ultimo-1930510.html|title=Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo|publisher=[[The Independant]]|date=March 29, 2010|accessdate=March 13, 2011}},<ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2010/ultimo-dumps-peaches-geldof-310310.html|title=Underwear Label, Ultimo, Dumps Peaches Geldof |publisher=Courtesy:Agences - via [[Oneindia.in]]|date=March 31, 2010|accessdate=March 12, 2011}}</ref>

Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after allegations of drug use and nude pictures of her were posted on the internet and published in the media. Geldof denied the claims and said, "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."^[1]^[2]

I'm a little lost at this point as I'm not sure why you have two bulleted items with the same wording. Anyway, your wording seems okay with citations to the Independent and One India. I'm too tired to fight the issue of whether the allegations of drug use were posted on the Internet. At least we won't be citing to the Sun. I'm assuming you're right about the Sun and One India being in the same low category, but at least in this instance the One India article doesn't come across as pornographic tabloid.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted the second one to look at it without all the cite format. We can leave it till tomorrow to see if there are other users that want to comment - anyways, its her birthday today, so happy birthday to her, 22 years young today. - well, its yesterday now.Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, it's already the 14th in England. 22 years old - what's that like? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only just about remember, a bit like driving a Pontiac Firebird compared to this Volvo I am in now. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - I removed the Sun (Newspaper) citation and replaced it with the two discussed here, the Independent and the one India citations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been away for a day or so, but just to add to what seems like a concluded episode - I'm also happy with the current page. a_man_alone (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the Ottoman throne

Resolved

– newly created article Line of succession today blanked by the creator and deleted, disputed content remains out of the original article

There was previously a BLPN discussion about this article.[9] The article was fixed up to remove BLP problems. But since then IPs have reverted, including today.[10] Maybe semi-protection would be in order?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poorly sourced material has now popped up in a new article.[11]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an AFD discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media as a Source

With increasing Social Media presence that various political and news groups, as well as celebrities and politicians have, how do we treat them in terms of either being or not being a reliable source? This is considering the fact that Social Media has become a very important source of news and reference even in journalism and news business. Social Media meaning: Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. Your insight on this is greatly appreciated. Watcherpost (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources for the policy covering this type of source. --Allen3 ^talk 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Marketic

Would someone with experience in current BLP policy (I am a bit out-of-date) please review the article? The Brunei bit is unsourced though probably could be sourced. The first arrest is unsourced and the second seems undue weight (UNDUE does not exactly apply but you know what I mean). The whole article is very tabloid. Thanks --Lyncs (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Brunei stuff because it was sourced only to legal documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Some of the aseertions in it were also inaccurate. I note it can be better sourced, to the Indepedent and People magazine. Ordinarily I would do so myself but this "sex slave" story is not my kind of editing, so let someone else handle this one. I also deleted an unsourced allegation about an arrest, and revised one remaining assertion of another arrest to comply better with WP:WEIGHT. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better, thanks. --Lyncs (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Downey (comedian)

A small issue on this page: an editor has removed the info that this individual is the brother of Robert Downey, Sr.. The ref used for this was an NBC bio (NBC is the individual's employer). When challenged, the editor has cited personal knowledge of the family. User Talk:Jespah#James Downey and NBC quote Would like some help figuring this one out. The Interior (Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reliable source. I'd go with it. In case it helps you, here's a news article from 1985 identifying Jim Downey as the head writer of SNL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused with precisely what Jespah is saying Jim Downey did or did not do but are we sure the refs we're using are referring to the same person? Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/C)The third item on this GB search seems to corroborate this as well (assuming The H.W. Wilson Company doesn't use us as a source!), however the snippet view doesn't give you the goods. (I've seen GB do this before, anyone know what's up with that?). I'd really like more info from the below poster before restoring, but judging from here comments, she's done with this. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused too, but the Jim Downey, long-time SNL writer, Harvard Grad is who the article is talking about. The Interior (Talk)

(ec) You're both confused because the explanation is confusing. :-) If I understand Jespah (Jespah's Talk page is a little clearer), there are two Downeys, both of whom appeared on SNL, but the one who just did a short appearance is the brother of Robert Sr. However, putting aside the probabilities of two James (Jim) Downeys on SNL, there is only one James Downey listed on IMDb and connected to SNL (as an actor, producer, writer, etc.). Although IMDb is not a wholly reliable source, it's pretty good when it comes to cast information, etc. Plus, there is zero proof of what Jespah is saying, just his/her say-so, which ain't good enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you all could see your comments from the perspective of one who actually knows Jim Downey. Very funny. IMDB does, indeed, include the work of both James and Jim Downey into one profile of a James Downey. Amazed at how not one of you really researched this. But you know it all... Here's a clue... look for a photo of the Jim Downey who appeared on Kate & Allie and the James Downey who wrote for SNL. Nell 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not know it alls, that why we use sources! I am fully open to the possibility that the NBC bio is wrong (it does have a typo), but at the moment it's what we have. Please help us out instead of leaving tantalizing clues like the Kat & Allie thing. The other J. Downey is an actor? What else has he been in? The Interior (Talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jespah has removed the info, and apparently feels their personal info is sufficient. Not sure where to go from here. The Interior (Talk) 23:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to interior re downey bio

you can choose to believe me or not - that is up to you. i don't need to discuss this. the james downey I know is referred to as jim downey, not james. he co-authored parodies of some of martha stewart's work. Nell 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC) refactored from bottom of page by The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) note: this poster is User:Jespah[reply]

He is in the movies I deleted from the page. Nell 14:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reza Moridi

I have asked others to monitor the progress of the Wikipedia article about the Canadian politician Reza Moridi Liberal MPP, Ontario. Could some of you who have the time keep an eye on this Wikipedia article? I need all the help that one could get on this to properly expand and monitor it within the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Starback (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote at the end of the article about Armenian "propaganda" is highly problematic. The source is not clearly reliable under our rules, as it contains numerous assertions about Armenian morality and behavior which call its neutrality into question. It is phrased as if it is Wikipedia's opinion, rather than the source's, that the Armenian genocide is propaganda. The quote also sounds like it is badly translated and not like something a fluent English speaker would say. Finally, see WP:COATRACK for viewpoints on the innapropriateness of attaching tangential material to articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing some more reading about the Azerbaijani press, and believe it cannot be used generally as a reliable source for contentious allegations about living people under our rules. The interview about the Armenian genocide and even the assertion that (though born in Iran) Moridi claims Azerbaijan nationality are both sourced to that country's newspapers and either need to be better sourced or come out of the article. I would welcome some other editors here taking a look to see if they agree with me. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanwallace (talk) your comments are appreciated and duly noted. I removed the section that you were objecting and referring to. I agree with you. Some of the English translations by the Azerbaijani media are poorly done, so as many other foreign media’s when it comes to nuance translation. Simultaneously, one cannot totally dismiss them as a source. i.e. Stratfor uses and quotes Azerbaijani media such as Today.Az, etc. when doing its intelligence analysis. The information that is used for inline citation is from Today.Az, the same source that Stratfor quotes. The following is one of the articles Today.Az has written and mentions Moridi: The keynote speaker at the event was Azerbaijani member of Ontario Provincial Parliament, Dr. Reza Moridi. Among other speakers at the Conference were Azerbaijan`s Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Farid Shafiyev. Therefore, we cannot state that what these Azeri media outlets have to say are not reliable as sources. In addition, if we always consider our own media in North America and U.K. reliable or refined then we are not really being unbiased or neutral. Starback (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corneille (singer)

Resolved

– Inappropriate material deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the "F" word is inappropriately used in the line talking about Corneille leaving Germany. You probably would want to Corneille (singer)edit that out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.41.210 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads up. It was already reverted it by the time I looked at it. For the future, you can revert the vandalism yourself if you wish. See Help:Reverting. However, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, reporting it is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Menzies

- Gavin Menzies "vexatious litigant"

The Gavin Menzies article currently makes the simple statement that he was found to be a "vexatious litigant" by a British court. I wanted to add a bit of detail, and made my suggestion on the talk page. But then I read WP:BLP, which made me think that my proposed addition might not be appropriate. Could someone please comment? The discussion is at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gavin_Menzies#.22vexatious_litigant.22
Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the Talk page that I am not currently comfortable with the way the assertion is sourced.Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about an academic

Said editor made the following comment yesterday "If we are to be expected to heed Reed and the body of 'historians' she represents..." [12]

I understand this violates policy under WP:BLPTALK (not limited to to said person's bio), and that is "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" WP:BLPREMOVE. I said this was an attack [13], and he claims otherwise [14].

Annette Gordon Reed is a highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winning historian [15]; deniers of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship often seek to discredit Gordon-Reed. It's clear from his comment he also questioned if Finkelman was an historian, though he's a respected academic (Phd, writer etc) said editor happens to disagree with [16].

His denialist/unfounded claims on the Hemings/Jefferson affair were commented on the fringe board [17]. He made similar comments on Paul Finkelman in Jan [18], and ignored warnings [19]. His demands to change the article now have added what I'd say is an attack on someone who "is recognized as one of our country’s most distinguished presidential scholars" [20]. I've got reason to believe some of his other comments/edits, on speculation directed towards Sally Hemings & Gordon-Reed, may support racial views incompatible with wikipedia's stated mission. Singling out Reed (an African American) without any basis is worrisome, particularly when this is what she herself describes as a problem. Ebanony (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you on the substance of the issue and am fine with the phrasing of the lede, on reviewing his comments, I don't think that the other editor's comments (while a little bit edgy with that "entities" crack) cross the line into the type of contentious material that can be deleted from Talk pages. Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is highly disfavored, and the gist of his remarks is that he doesn't believe certain material belongs in the lede, but only elsewhere in the article. This is an acceptable position for him to take, even if against consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comment & the clarification. Thank you for looking into the matter.Ebanony (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Bacon

Arising from some OTRS complaints, can I ask someone to review this article carefully, taking particular interest in the quality of sources? It relies a lot on "Bahamas Press", which doesn't seem to be very reliable. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of looking, I moved a load of externals to the talkpage, some deadlinks and some unreliable, if anyone wants to use the reliable ones to add some content to the body of the article they are there on the talkpage for investigation. I also removed a small section about someone died in the hot tub on his estate, on investigation the guy died of coronary heart disease and nothing happened. - so all the story boiled down to was. - In May 2010 a man died of coronary heart disease in a hot tub on the subjects estate. - personally imo death is normal and as such happens all the time and not notable and presented as it was it asserted that the subject might have had involvement in the death which is titillating speculation and disputed by the coroner. This SPA seems to have been instrumental in some of the dubious additions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Cooper

Resolved

– 14 March 2011 User:Lear's Fool deleted "Jess Cooper" ‎ (Identification of a minor who has not been identified in published sources)

- Naming of a minor

Unlike Corey Worthington, nothing has actually happened, and her surname has not been published in any reliable source. We are talking about a 15 year old minor... surely we can't let the article sit here for a full week whilst the AfD occurs. This ref doesn't even use her real first name! The one quoted in the article only uses her first name, and her father "asked for his name to be withheld".The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a review of my administrative actions here, as I'm an inexperienced administrator, and get the feeling I'm a little over my head. The article was created after the subject (a 15-year-old girl) had her birthday party hijacked on Facebook. As was pointed out at the article's current AfD, she has not been identified by her full name in any reliable source. I've deleted it for this reason, and noindexed the AfD. -- Lear's Fool 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good to me, well done. I would also suggest WP:SALT - creation protect the article title. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I salted it for a fortnight when I deleted it. If it becomes a problem after that, we can always re-salt. -- Lear's Fool 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good, stuff like that doesn't qualify for seven days of discussion and continued publication through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Ἲ[reply]

Jeff Foxworthy

Resolved

– Pending-change protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. User:Dabomb87

The 'Early Life' section has been defaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.2.25 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to a pre vandalism version and requested protection at the WP:RFPP here. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KORC (AM)

I'm not sure this belongs here, but the BLP folks might know better what to do. The article in question, KORC (AM), contains the name of an owner of one of the companies that once owned the station. It appears this person didn't want his name mentioned in Wikipedia, and an edit war ensued between the article's creator and this person. On the company owner's talk page, it is clear he feels bitten, although he is resigned to have his name in the article. How could this have been handled differently? WP:BLPEDIT seems to apply here though the article itself is not a biography. Any ideas? Personally I think the name of the person doesn't enhance the article, and could be taken out, but it is part of the public record as the article creator has stated. Valfontis (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken both names out. Explanation on article talk page. Exxolon (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew George (Politician)

An anonymous person keeps adding defamatory content to this article under the heading Expenses Controversy. Whilst this appears ostensibly to be sourced and be from a NPOV, it is in fact defamatory since the material it keeps presenting - largely from the highly political organ The Daily Telegraph - is itself defamatory, in my view. It is trite case-law that promulgating a libel in this amount of detail is in itself defamatory. The fact that Mr George did not see fit to commence action against the Telegraph does not mean the defamation can be repeated ad nauseam in other media. In fact, Mr George was exonerated of any impropriety by the Legg committee, the body convened to investigate MPs' expense claims.

My own personal view is that the whole exercise is party-political mischief and does not in any way promote the encyclopedic approach expected from Wikipedia. Mr George could have his right to reply about this material but that would not be encyclopedic either and would turn the article into a blog. I believe the material should be permanently excluded.

Gkerridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkerridge (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This content has been in and out since last May, originally added in May 2010 by this IP 109.202.225.122 and now its being added by 109.202.227.31 .. the content is just a bit undue and written without a neutral position, resulting in weaselly worded phrases and editorial exaggeration imo. I think rather than total removal it more needs trimming and a rewrite from a neutral person. If you look at the think he actually did wrong or had to pay back - nothing as far as I can see? Was he punished or charged in any way? All I can see is that he put a claim in for £3,999 bill for furniture and household items and the fees office reduced this by £1,488.95, - so he had an expenses claim cut in half all the rest is partisan attack with no substance at all, this content is around 25 percent of the text in the BLP. If there were punishments and charges that I have missed please point me towards them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Rob. While I think this incident is worth mentioning given the front-page-of-major-broadsheet and extensive other coverage, the way in which huge amounts of trivial detail are mindlessly repeated from that coverage, is totally unencyclopedic. I'm not a politician, but I've ordered from room service on business expenses many times, and for things a lot more expensive than a cup of hot chocolate! Maybe the guy was staying in top-end hotels when he shouldn't have been, but that's what politicians do, and anyone who has stayed in that type of hotel knows that they leave those £3.50 bottles of ordinary mineral water lying around to encourage you to drink them. And he and his wife drank just one between them? That's hardly earth-shattering enough to need to be featured in an encyclopedia.

The point that he should not have been claiming for his wife as well as himself is a valid one to make (but someone needs to find reliable sources discussing George's response to that point, and also reliable sources concerning Gkerridge's assertion that the investigating committee found that George had done nothing wrong.) The docklands flat and the beds nonsense is possibly worth covering too, but it needs more clarity than is present right now, and there is no need to repeat the exact figures and dates and minutiae in the way that's done at present. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I remove the trivia and the undue there will be little left, allowing your daughter to sleep over or stay in your apartment for a while is not either is not illegal or even anything wrong at all. I get the feeling that when all the smoke and mirrors had died down there was no allegations worthy of reporting left, although I imagine the damage was done my then. I would like to see laid out any charges or punishments or even slapped wrist, apart from having a good job and a dry cleaning bill. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses controversy

In the 2009 United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Andrew George attracted sustained scrutiny, with the Daily Telegraph devoting a front page to his housing arrangements. In particular, they queried how after 10 years of George living in hotels and rented flats as an MP, in 2007 he had used his parliamentary allowances to buy a two-bedroom £308,000 Docklands flat which he admitted was used by his daughter as "a bolt-hole" as she moved to London to attend university. However, George countered that his daughter had not stayed in the flat for long, and had moved into student halls by the time her university course began in Autumn 2007. George also came under criticism by the Telegraph for several other items. They queried how he had claimed £1,898 for furnishings for his second home in London, including a sofa and bed, when he asked them to be delivered to his main home in Cornwall (which he was not entitled to claim for). When nine months later he claimed a £3,999 bill for furniture and household items including a bed and a futon for relatives staying over, the fees office reduced this by £1,488.95, arguing "You have already claimed for a bed in anticipation of your purchase of a second home. You may not claim living costs for anyone other than yourself." George drew further criticism from the Telegraph for including his wife in expenses claims for hotel stays, with the Telegraph citing one example of the couple spending £399.05 on two nights’ accommodation, including continental breakfasts on both mornings and a hot chocolate ordered on room service in June 2005; and a two night stay for the couple in September 2005, during the summer parliamentary recess, when they spent £303.41 on a room, breakfast and a £3.50 bottle of water. When challenged, George pledged to repay £19.90 for one of his wife's breakfasts, although he subsequently refused to pay the amount. The same piece also queried his claims for dry cleaning, citing £233.05 spent in one month alone.

Akrom Yo‘ldoshev

I am the son of the person who is being regarded in this article. I found the article too brief to give the right idea about my dad. Because it lacks in details the article falsely accuses my dad in a crimes that he has never done. I want you to take this article off of the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.87.216 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a deletion discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akrom Yo‘ldoshev. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small extra note - if you (Akrom's son) wish to comment on the deletion discussion, you should create an account first - also it's not a vote, but a discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Drudge

Last year was subjected to a series of edits by User:Ratel seeking to add a great deal of contentious material that Matt Drudge is gay. Consensus in June 2010, after Ratel was barred for socking, was that the material did not belong in the BLP. The article was stable until this week.

[21] shows a new editor adding the precise material which Ratel had added in the past. I removed it noting the stability and consensus on the article. User:BozellHammer reverted. I noted again on the talk page that consensus did not favor the large section. He re-added a section by Ratel at [22] then asserted that this was a "slow edit war" when he went to a slightly different version at [23] asserting that the "edit war" started in June 2010. After the outre assertion of "slow edit war" with me having one revert in a year <g>, I reverted his new addition. He then reverted at [24] with an attack mode edit summary of "rv edit warring by user who has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring."

Amazingly enough, I felt this person might be an incarnation of a banned editor, but he is not linked to known Ratel socks. So what we are left with is a single new editor who insists the prior consensus is invalid for some reason. Therefore, I post here to iterate the numerous times this article has been discussed on this very board at [25] with the consensus of Since he has strongly denied the allegations, then it seems to be an WP:Undue issue at best and spreading gossip at worst, which is a BLP no-no. [26] (note Skappensboer is indeed Ratel) concluding The most obvious thing in the user's proposed section is the lengths to which s/he has gone to propel a conclusion that Drudge must, of course, be wrong. It exceeds the limits of WP:NPOV. A referenced comment is one thing, a carefully structured and multiply-referenced enjoinder against a neutral view is quite another. [27] with the comment I agree the presentation is WP:UNDUE and should be considerably shortened.

Note that no discussions here so far have backed the Ratel-favored attack on Drudge, and I regard this as pretty much settled in the past - the issue now is convincing the new editor that it was, indeed, settled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As amusing as Collect's now-discredited sockpuppet accusations against me are, he's simply trying to throw dust in the eyes of the admins. Stated simply, Collect unilaterally deleted a large section of the Drudge article last June. The section -- "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" -- had been the subject of extensive Talk Page discussion, and the clear consensus arrived at was to include it.

Collect has a long history of revert wars on politically themed subjects. This seems to be the case yet again. --BozellHammer (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try to focus on the content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Note that this boiard has never backed what appears to be your position, nor has discussion on the article talk page backed your position. I note, moreover, that "politically themed subjects" make up a tiny fraction of my watch list which is posted at User:Collect/watchlisted articles for the specific purpose of making such false allegations about me as ludicrous as possible. Amazingly enough, deal with the edits, not with attacking the other editor. And again, since you are almost a brand new user [28], I find your comments -- interesting. Collect (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What only 424, you need to get busy dude. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are Matt Drudge's sexual preferences notable or part of his notability? Hes he self expressed his sexual preferences? Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed in the Daily News (New York) - that really is a low grade publication imo, every time I see it I squirm. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the place to bring up suspicions of sock-puppetry is SPI not here. And this is not the correct forum to complain about the behavior of other editors. TFD (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did, if you read my post. And it is amazing that you show up here. :) Collect (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cramer

Cramer claims to be 65 years old. The article says he is 56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.248.115 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a more reliable source WP:RS than the one in the article now currently claiming 56. I left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage, happy editing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Leonora Smith

This article reads like a CV from start to finish, has few verifiable sources, and other than bots, the only contributors have been from two usernames, neither of whom cite sources.

The main book that Charlene Leonora Smith is supposed to have written is attributed most recently not to her, but to another author, a man named Peter Hain.

Looks to me like this article was published by a sock puppet and should be deleted -- or at least that the poster must provide burden of proof that the content of the article is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.A.Activist (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have blanked the article, there are no sources for us to evaluate. As you have reportd it here, suggest restoring the content so other editors can weigh in on the quality of sourcing. The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Figes

Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm new to this article: I saw today's complaints about it at the COI noticeboard. But it's an issue that needs to be treated by those expert in BLP issues. I restored content[29] that appears to be perfectly well sourced and the subject of widespread media commentary. As far as I can tell this is a simple issue of some people not wanting the subject's embarrassing situation reported, even though it meets our encyclopedic criteria. But I'd appreciate it if others would step in to endorse or oppose my judgement. Wareh (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is perhaps resolved, as one of the two main voices calling for the removal of the Amazon controversy section has accepted that it is sourced and that it may remain (while still maintaining a preference to remove it as relatively unimportant material). Wareh (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wallace

Resolved

– User:Scott MacDonald deleted "Alexandra Wallace (student)" ‎ (WP:G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP

A recent emotionally-charged racist video post on youtube has severely inflamed the UCLA community. She was the culprit and thousands of peopole are rising up to declare their hate. There can be almost no neutral discussion of her until the event has resolved itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berto1286 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article (Alexandra Wallace) is about an unrelated NBC news presenter of the same name, but was overtaken by vandals and others trying to turn it into an article about this UCLA student. I have reverted it to the original version, revdeled the worst of the BLP violations in the history, and semi-protected it for two days. -- Lear's Fool 07:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Alexandra Wallace (student) as an attack page. That was not a biography, just a narration of someone's stupid you-tube rant.--Scott Mac 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not complaining, but I had actually re-written it to be something closer to a biography. My rewrite was reverted by UCRGrad (talk · contribs), back to the narration of the rant, but there was a somewhat better revision in the article history. Nevertheless, I think everyone's time is saved by its speedy deletion: I was going to nominate it for AfD anyway. -- Lear's Fool 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew George (politician)

The input of regulars here would be appreciated in resolving the problems of undue weight at Andrew George (politician). An IP editor has been reinserting material surrounding an expenses scandal, but in such a manner as to give it grossly undue weight. I've fully protected the article for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HJ, there was a recent report of this issue, see just above - Andrew George, here - Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ching chong

- "controversies" section on Ching chong

Can people please look at Ching chong, especially the "controversies" section? I'm enlightened enough to know that adding extensive quotes in the footnotes can easily pull facts out of context. I;m not familiar with the other cases laboriously spelled out with a play-by-play action but I did see the one with Rosie O'Donnell - I took the ching chong out of her article - and it was next to nothing. She used the phrase trying to be funny, learned from friends it was a serious slur, explained herself and apologized the next live show. I'm sure there is good reasons to magnify the incident much larger than it needs to be but I would think inferring that someone is a racist was pretty bad, especially if the facts state otherwise.Jnast1 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bupenda Meitei

Any help with Bupenda Meitei would be appreciated,

I have done my best to tidy up and denote the problems, and to explain to the user - as you'll see from the page history and the user's talk page. However, I think this will need further attention - specifically regarding the sourcing. I am not even convinced the person is notable.

I've done my best so far, and I'm just asking for more eyes on this BLP. Thanks in anticipation, Chzz ► 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. Gandhirajan

Unsourced article is fawningly favorable to Gandhirajan, who is a former state legislative leader of Tamil Nadu. It contains (inter alia) bitter allegations against leadership of his old political party, which he has left. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything WP:RS and as the content was uncited and promotional or at least weaselly and included some personal claims I moved it to the talkpage for either a local editor or someone informed to improve and replace, and left a note. I am assuming that the political positions he has held assert automatic wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the general rule that any member of a state legislature is notable, this particular person apparently has been seen as influential in Tamil Nadu politics fairly recently; see articles like this one]. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking - if you see state legislator there is automatic en wikipedia notability. Thanks for the citation, I added it and a small comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Kramer

Marcia Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ticket:2011031110009051

Pursuant to an OTRS complaint, I've looked at this article and removed a good bit of it as problematic under WP:BLP. The source that much of the former "Journalistic Credibility Issues" section relied on seems to be a blog. I'm not sure if it's a reliable enough source to be used at all, but even beyond that the section was full of vitriole and innuendo not even raised by that source: "Many observers concluded that..." "there was, at least, one major casualty on that street in 2011 -- Marcia Kramer's journalistic credibility."

I'm bringing this here to request review by uninvolved contributors to determine if the article as it stands now is neutral, if any content should be sourced to "streetsblog" and, if so, what would constitute due coverage.

I have left one thing added by that IP: the information on Federal Bill 602-P, though I have neutralized it somewhat. Should that remain? Or is that also undue?

Your feedback here would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moises salinas

Both in the 3. Academic activities section as well as in the 4.Sexual assault conviction, the information is biased and intended to cause harm and affect this persons privacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianto (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? The Academic activities section, although without any inline cites, is a list of his achievements. His plea of no contest to the sexual assault charge is a matter of public record and properly cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Snyder

Under the "biography" section, passages about Snyder's upcoming commencement speech at the University of Michigan--Ann Arbor seem especially one-sided. In any case, these sentences should not appear at that point in the article; perhaps under a separate "controversies" section as in many other wikis, but that's just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.110.59 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than one-sided or inappropriately placed, the material was unsourced. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rabbi shmuley boteach

I am a colleague of ten years of Rabbi Shmuley and know that he recently fired people who are taking advantage of your system and posting libelous information. i have tried to take it down and they keep restoring it. i know there must be something you can do. rabbi Shmuley has worked hard and with the utmost integrity to get to where he is and it pains me to see that lies are being posted by two verified anti semitic disgruntled former employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.23.173 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources to determine whether what you say is true, and whether to act in it - though I have to suggest that if the rabbi has been employing 'verified' anti-semites, one might at least question his judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Jeselnik

the article implies he is gay, likes Daniel Tosh, and asks who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhobbs (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like vandalism - this has been reverted, and the page semi-protected, which will probably solve the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche 2

SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed [30][31] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association. The review states,

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [32][33]

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --JN466 05:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add this to the existing thread, above? Will Beback talk 05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Salinas

Repeated changes to biography that are possible violation of BLPN policy. Article has been subject to many instances of vandalism before. It is doubtful that cited reference is accurate, due to numerous contradictoions. For example, a No Contest plea does not equal a conviction, and state court does not have authority to issue extradition orders against U.S. citizens. Request reverting to last stable version before 3/9/2011 and semi-protection while issue is being investigated.

^ "Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo". The Independant. March 29, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2011.,
^ "Underwear Label, Ultimo, Dumps Peaches Geldof". Courtesy:Agences - via Oneindia.in. March 31, 2010. Retrieved March 12, 2011.

[1] "Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo". The Independant. March 29, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2011.,

[2] "Underwear Label, Ultimo, Dumps Peaches Geldof". Courtesy:Agences - via Oneindia.in. March 31, 2010. Retrieved March 12, 2011.

[1]

[2]

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