Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tasseorace (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 14 May 2013 (→Ryder Skye article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    Libel (or other criminal qualification) in article "Martin van Rijn"

    Resolved
     – vandalism reverted--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    <attack redacted>

    seems unacceptable behaviour by editor 2001:4c98:2:0:3c9b:8577:aba8:71bc

    I think appropriate measures against this editor should be taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltshazzar (talk • contribs)

    This was a single incident of vandalism which was not restored once removed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-published blog on living person

    In the article LewRockwell.com, per this diff, an editor wants to include criticism of a living person (Gary North) from a self-published blog by Tom G. Palmer, using a WP:RS that criticizes that person to back up the negative criticisms on the self-published blog. Sounds like WP:Synthesis to me and against Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources which I've quoted there:

    Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5]

    I don't have a problem with them using the WP:RS on the person's article. But I do have a problem with the attempts to use a rather inflammatory self-published blog, and fear it will be a bad precedent for more of the same in this article. (Plus arguing about it has stalled my ability to collect a number of WP:RS showing the notability of the website in general, leaving article extremely unbalanced.) Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a misrepresentation of the record. On his website, Tom Palmer explicitly cites and discusses the RS of Reason magazine in support of his criticism of north for wanting stone gays and heretics to death (a claim which, as can be seen from the Gary North Wikipedia page, has a copious number of RS). In other words, he's criticizing North for x, and explicitly basing his evidence for x on RS y; mentioning his criticism and his basis for that criticism (an RS which he discusses explicitly extensively in the piece) is not SYN. The full excerpt Carol is objecting to on the LewRockwell.com page is as follows: On his personal website in 2004, Tom G. Palmer criticized Lew Rockwell, as well as LewRockwell.com, for hosting as a columnist Gary North, whom Palmer noted (citing a 1998 piecehttp://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning in Reason) advocates "stoning heretics and homosexuals to death." (the source for the Palmer criticism is: http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/) Clearly, there is no "BLP" issue here. Steeletrap (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was previously unaware of this discussion, but I happened to notice the BLP violation and removed it from the article.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having brushed up on WP:BLP, the criticisms of Sobran and Francis (which Quest for knowledge removed, and is ostensibly referring to) were apparently violations of WP rules (though Palmer's claims about them are easily verifiable, they were unsourced, and thus "came from him" and are in violation of WP rules.) But, to stay on point, this is not the case with the Gary North criticism which Carol raises above. Palmer's claim re: North is based on evidence from an RS (Reason) which he explicitly discusses and cites in the article. (he doesn't "allege" North wants to stone gays to death any more than I "allege" Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review; he (like me) is paraphrasing RS that credibly reported that.) The only thing original to him is his criticism of LRC for publishing him. Steeletrap (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, looks like WP:Synthesis applied to WP:BLP. Put the Reason article on the Gary North web page where it belongs. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tricky situation. Reliable sources show that North said X, and that he was criticized for it, this is in North's article. Can we include in another article — where it is relevant — that fact? Does this violate WP:BLP or WP:Synthesis, or is it OK? FurrySings (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a solution to this. His LRC comments, and criticism, gets expounded upon in his BLP (to the extent that the page-watchers of his article allow), and a "See further" hatnote or "See also" link gets added to the LRC page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) [stricken] 20:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Palmer's blog as a WP:RS on WP:BLP is out and he's the only one mentioning both North and LRC/Lew Rockwell together. North is already listed as a columnist with a link. I did find another North article mentioned by a WP:RS and will put it in with a link to his article and people who care to can go over and read the Reason and other articles. Anything else is synth and verboten. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, Palmer's web site can only be used as a source about himself, not other people or third-parties, even in his own article. So, Palmer's website cannot be used a source about LewRockwell.com anywhere on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: both Joseph Sobran and Samuel Francis both are dead and have been for more than two years. So, per WP:BLP there is no BLP issue, and any "BLP" discussion in regards to them (not North) is therefore baseless. Steeletrap (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that Palmer criticizing both Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com is the crux of the issue, or mentioning Sobran and Francis would not be relevant at all. Plus Palmer's comments are hardly dispassionate remarks by an expert on libertarianism, but highly personal rants meant to damage Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com and therefore their reliability is rather questionable. I don't think any real encyclopedia would use them. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Steeletrap still does not understand why s/he can't use the Palmer material or material mentioned by Palmer that is not about LewRockwell.com so that s/he can enter negative material about one (or possibly more) of the website's writers into the article with no secondary source linking them. Help explaining it to her/him sure would be appreciated! At Talk:LewRockwell.com#Palmer_criticisms. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The reopening of this thread, which had gotten stale, is not needed. I made an inquiry on the article talk page, Steeletrap has responded, and we are now hashing out details on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not stale if the person is still arguing to violate WP:BLP policy, despite clear comments and edits to the article by noninvolved editor(s) who reply at this noticeboard. It seems to me that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is especially applicable to WP:BLP. How many editors have to make it clear to an individual that you can't use self-published blog articles like Palmer's whose whole intent (as made clear in title of one article and text of another) is to attack a living person. The purpose of noticeboards is to help settle issues, not for them just to be be moved back to and argued out ad nauseum on article talk pages, with editors having to quote Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources over and over and over again. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please state your concerns in a civil tone and without assuming that ultimate consensus will support your view. If you are feeling nauseus, please consider a brief respite in fresher air off WP. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my tone was unduly uncivil and expresses frustration more with the process than an individual. But searching through WP:BLP yet again, mea culpa. I find the relevant second paragraph of Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which provides clear guidance on what to do in a number of WP:BLPs where I have seen similar problems. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ariel Fernandez

    The section Concerns on Results is heavily biased and scathing to the subject. Papers get challenged all the time. In this case the challenge has been inconsequential. This section only serves the purpose of defaming the subject. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.23.0 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Most of the section was a direct quote from the source so I removed it as copyvio. I agree that it is far to trivial for entry. The article itself may end up in AfD for not being notable enough.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone just paraphrased it and added it back. I still believe it is too trivial to include. I couldn't be bothered to fight a battle over it though. Others may also wish to see if the article meets or notabilty standards and possibly put it in AfD for review.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently, somebody is interested in discrediting Ariel Fernandez. This is a trivial matter that does not belong in Wikipedia. Please remove. Haydee Belinky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody is interested in discrediting Ariel Fernandez per se. I think that Ariel Fernandez is paranoid that people are out to discredit him (for whatever reason) and this comes across in his demeanour. But there are certainly some free speech activists out there, offended at shallow legal threats made by Ariel Fernandez towards a couple of blogs, who have expressed an interest in using Wikipedia to bait Ariel Fernandez into somehow making an ass of himself. Disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated here and the Ariel Fernandez page will strictly be held to BLP policy, but Ariel Fernandez (under whatever guise) should still exercise caution in his interactions here to ensure that they are not successful in their aims. Rubiscous (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The section in question had nothing to do with legal threats. It simply stated the facts about an editorial expression of concern recently issued by a scientific journal. It was removed at the request of "Haydee Belinky" (probably Fernandez). I disagree with this because the expression of concern is an important part of the scientific record that people will want to know about. How about at least adding an external link to it? AlphaHelical (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't removed at the request of "Haydee Belinky", it was removed following "Haydee Belinky"'s request because Canoe1967 considered it weakly sourced and trivial. As far as I can see, only one other scientific BLP on Wikipedia mentions the text "expression of concern", and that's within the context of widely discussed misconduct. Is this expression of concern about Ariel Fernandez's work really such a noteworthy event as to warrant the only other mention? Rubiscous (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point, but I hope you take mine: the request for removal, along with claims that the matter discussed is trivial, came from the subject of the article in an attempt to hide something significant. To answer your question, yes, it is quite noteworthy that one of his institutions investigated him and found that his reported results could not have been produced the way he claims they were. This means, at best, that he made a serious scientific error that he will not acknowledge, and at worst that he fabricated the results. AlphaHelical (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Hawking

    Some extra eyes on the articles above may help for a few days. I've boldly removed some content per WP:NOTNEWS for now[2][3][4] since matters are not clear at this stage, it's a breaking story (e.g. the Reuters article "Confusion as Hawking pulls out of Israeli conference" was only published a couple of hours ago) and it involves WP:BLP. I've already been reverted once. Since this combines a living "celebrity" with the Arab-Israeli conflict there is much potential for...let's say volatility. I think it would be better to wait a week or so to see if things become clearer but patience isn't very popular. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your removal of this content given the contradictory reports. GabrielF (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably worth adding, since many editors may not know, that this content is probably covered by WP:1RR under WP:ARBPIA because it is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different sources say different things. Complete opposite of one another. His official website says nothing. Recent sources say its for the boycott. Check the time zones, when was each report done? [5] Dream Focus 16:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say if we are relying on time zones to resolve the conflict, there is still a conflict. Just because one published after the other does not mean they have the most recent information. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This source attributes Hawking's nonattendance to "health, not boycott". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not.(JTAForward) This is what WP:NOTNEWS is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Intel angle notable? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-hypocrisy-israel-boycott Hcobb (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hawking will probably be subjected to many more attacks by Israel supporters. It's probably another reason to wait a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I I do believe enough time has passed and the matter has become sufficiently clear at this point. Before adding things though, Hcobb brings up a good point. What is relevant to mention in an Encyclopedia? I for one do not believe mentioning the intel thing is at all relevant. I think it should be stated as simply and concisely as possible, so as not to blow this out of proportion like the news did. Just say he joined the academic boycott of israel by boycotting this specific conference in Jerusalem hosted by th Israeli president. Thoughts? Also, Sean, why did you revert my content only on the boycott pages but not on Stephen Hawking's page? I am not attacking, I am just wondering how came to decide to do that.Daniel Stavons (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually in the Hawking article already. This is not the first time Hawking has made controversial statements that created uproar (he called the Iraq War a "war crime", and supported Universal health care for example). All that is needed is to add this one briefly to this list, and this has already been done.Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed information from 3 articles then explained why here.
    • 2013-05-08T15:52:50 Stephen Hawking[6]
    • 2013-05-08T15:20:57 Boycotts of Israel[7]
    • 2013-05-08T15:20:48 Academic boycotts of Israel[8]
    I didn't check who originally added the content to those 3 articles because it wasn't relevant, so don't take it personally, I just removed it for the reasons explained above. I didn't make any edits related to this issue in any articles after posting here. I think enough time has probably passed and the matter has become sufficiently clear at this point too. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Sean, I was wondering what to do about IranitGreenberg who recently tried to re-add the incorrect story about Hawking actually canceling for health reasons on the Boycott of Israel page. Right now, I just undid the revision and linked to this discussion board. Is that the appropriate response? Daniel Stavons (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's edit warring, with or without 1RR, put it on his Talk page so admins will know of all the various violations on various articles. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio

    Can someone please take a look at the "Other family members" section in the article about the kidnapped females in Cleveland, and this related talk page thread as soon as possible? Is an "Other family members" section even appropriate? The paragraph that is by far the most concerning is the third paragraph, which talks about the completely unrelated crimes of one of the suspects' daughters, and the fact that she once tried to commit suicide. Wow, what does any of that content about a suspect's daughter have to do with the subject of the article?? Nothing! Can some experienced editors please review the entire section and remove whatever is inappropriate and violates policies or guidelines? The entire section was removed last night, but someone reverted it. Perhaps some of it is notable and relevant to the article, but I'll let those much more experienced with BLP issues decide that. Btw, someone really needs to set User:Legacypac straight on BLP policy. Read his comments in the talk page thread. Thanks! --o76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Based on the talk page discussion, which includes agreement from an admin, an editor has just removed the most inappropriate content in the section with this edit. Whether another editor will revert it, I don't know. But I think if any editor re-adds that outrageously inappropriate content, they should be blocked from editing for awhile. In any case, the remaining content, and just having the section itself, should still be carefully reviewed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that there are now several people proposing to move the page in such a way to assert as a fact that kidnappings took place. I cannot see this as anything but a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - there have been no convictions for kidnapping, and such assertions can only be prejudicial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a BLP vio to assert that a crime took place. Federales (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the event, and narrowly about the people directly involved in it. It's not about one of the alleged perpetrator's second cousin's former landlord's mother in law's 3rd grade history teacher that did something bad this one time at band camp, and some enterprising reporter dug up to get more page views on his juicy story. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the move discussion in question is here: [9]. The proposal is to use "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" as the title, under the rationale that reliable sources are calling them kidnappings, and that the suspect has now been charged with kidnappings. So it's immaterial whether or not the suspect is guilty, since the crime being committed is described as a "kidnapping", and the official stance is thus that the victims were kidnapped; that doesn't change even if the suspect is found innocent. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The really problematic BLP issue is the inclusion of the victims' names in the title. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM There's a very good reason by rape and child abuse victims are typically anonymous: people need to go on with their lives without the whole world knowing that information. There is no need for the title of this article to further the victimization these poor women have suffered. Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Slp1, these women are not anonymous. Far from it. Two of them have been in the news regularly over the past decade. We cannot censor names in highly notable crime articles like this. Did you express the same thoughts about Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? Smart was in captivity for nine months; these females were gone for a decade. Yes, they were both horrific crimes, but their signicant notability, which is not temporary, necessitates putting their names in the title. That's why the title of Smart's article isn't Utah girl kidnapping. This was discussed in great length when the Smart and Dugard articles were being developed. Therefore, this is not, as you say, a "really problematic BLP issue". Contrary to your request at the article's talk page to "put yourselves in the shoes of these victims a few years from now", we must actually be careful as editors of an encylopedia not to do that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the answer I gave you on the talkpage before repeating the same post here. The major difference is that both Dugard and Smart have written books about their experience. They have drawn attention to their situation. To date these women have not at all. Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, editors here may not see anything said somehwere else. And I'll repeat whatever I'd like as I see fit. And let's not forget that you are repeating your same arguments in multiple places. I already addressed your book argument which, frankly, is completely illogical. Uh, they didn't write books until long after their Wikipedia articles were created. So what you describe as "a major difference" makes no sense. Look, our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel. It's to write an encylopedia based on notability and reliable sources. So whether someone wrote a book or not is completely irrelevant to what we do here as editors. The articles are Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping for a reason. There was full and lengthy discussion about those titles. That's why they're not Kidnapping of Calfornia girl and Utah girl kidnapping. Look, you've made your views clear. Now we'll see how the move proposal goes. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel". I think you'll find that the WMF has a different opinion on this matter: [10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should read it again. Nothing in it contradicts what I said. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do not see how wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people applies here. We did not strip these victims of dignity (point 2 in the WMF link); the alleged suspect did. Now we need to act as an encyclopedia. Does it suck for them that they're the targets of a widely viewed Wikipedia article? Yes, I assume it does. Do I care? Yes, I actually am fairly uncomfortable working on such an article. (I mainly do so to make sure the article isn't too horrid; personally, I'd rather wait until it's sourced better, but I know creation of the article won't wait for that.) Is it relevant to the purposes of Wikipedia that these individuals went through such an experience, such that we'd exclude widely disseminated personal information? No, and I think that's the important point there. BLP doesn't cover what basically all sources are reporting. If we could have a generic title that worked, I'd be quite happy with that, but no such workable title has been proposed. Nor do I see a BLP violation given the huge coverage currently and over the past decade of these individuals. The fact is, within the article itself, we're going to name the victims. Lacking any other way to write the title...we're going to end up basing it on the victims' names. It's not optimal, but I really don't think it's a BLP violation. It's not great, but it's what it is. In my opinion, either we exclude the victims' names altogether (which makes no sense given the decade-long coverage), or we treat them as valid for the article title. And not calling these "kidnappings" when that's the current legal justification is even more ludicrous, really. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, we need to be concerned about BLP issues regarding the victims. Exceptionally concerned, and we must be scrupulous to avoid joining the voracious media pack in sensationalizing their plight. But BLP applies to the suspects as well. Fresh reports indicate this might have been a one-man crime, and if we helped pillory innocent family members, shame on us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, no one said we shouldn't be concerned about BLP issues. Haha. We of course should always be concerned about BLP issues. And those have been addressed very nicely by some great editors who have removed any unworthy crap from the article. And that will continue to happen. And including the names of the victims in the title is in no way a BLP violation and, in fact, has clear precedence e.g. Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Those kidnapping cases are in the exact same realm as this case and therefore should have the same title formatting. I do agree, however, that there were some horrific violations with regard to the original suspects in terms of not adhering to BLP policy regarding those arrested but not even charged with a crime yet. You're absolutely right: "shame on us" for those violations. I voiced my concerns from the beginning about that, but unfortunately to no avail (until police announced the two brothers had nothing to do with the crime). 76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy (again)

    Nigel Lattais a psychologist in New Zealand with a television program called Beyond the Darklands in which he discusses high-profile criminal offenders. On the page Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, editor VNTrav has repeatedly posted a dubious comment made by Nigel Latta on his program about Mark Lundy - who has been convicted of killing his wife and child, Christine and Amber Lundy. Lundy claims he is innocent and is taking his appeal to the Privy Council in Britain.

    Unfortunately, Mr Latta does not interview or conduct clinical assessments of the offenders he talks about because they are still in prison and not allowed to speak to anyone in the media. Latta gets his information from family and people who knew the offender and extrapolates that into a diagnosis - which is unethical and irresponsible - but makes great TV. In the 30 min documentary which he did on Mark Lundy, he describes Mr Lundy as requiring support to stand up at the funeral (of his wife and child). He referred to this as "limb specific grief".

    There is no such disorder or diagnosis known as limb specific grief recognised by the medical profession. Latta made it up and Wikipedia is not in the business of validating pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV presenters. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and, in my opinion, contravenes WP:BLP which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".

    I have removed the comment a number of times but VNTrav keeps reposting it. Who agrees that this non-existent medical condition labelled "limb specific grief" being applied to a living person is a breach of WP:BLP? Offender9000 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not up to you or me to decide whether someone is capable of diagnosing something or not. What matters here is that inserting the opinion of a person into a BLP context is original research. If there are secondary sources that cover Latta's comments or diagnosis or the way he scratched his head while he talked about the issue, then that can be included. Otherwise not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you clarify please... You seem to be saying that Latta's diagnosis is an opinion - is therefore original research and should not be included. Is that what you meant? Offender9000 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at it this way: You find a video or article by John saying XYZ about Jane, and you include it in a BLP context (in this case, an article that talks about about Jane). That's original research and POV, because you as Wikipedia editor, supposedly neutral, are making a value judgement as to the weight of Johns's opinion re: Jane. On the other hand, if you find an article by Mary@ReliableSource that confers that weight and validity by virtue of coverage, then it's fine - assuming the material does not violate WP:UNDUE to begin with. So in that sense, inclusion is a non-starter. Does that make sense? And in this case, it sounds like it's just made up since it's not even a real medical term, so no dice either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from Mary@ReliableSource (or, in this case, Elizabeth@thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper) here: [11]. If any living person's BLP is being violated, it is Nigel Latta's, and it is Offender who is doing the violating with his slurs against Latta's character e.g. [12] ("unethical and irresponsible"); [13] ("trying to make a buck out of other people's misery"); [14] ("Latta made it up"); [15] (in its entirety is nothing but an unsubstantiated slur against Latta); etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper" (as you put it) is only quoting Latta. There is no independent or secondary source showing that "limb specific grief" exists. Therefore Latta made it up. WP:BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". Offender9000 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't see how including this would be WP:UNDUE, however, I will note that "limb-specific grief" comes up in Google only on this article and mentions of Latta's comments, so realistically it's fair to say he made that up somehow, and giving it too much weight would be silly at best. I could even be considered "gossip" to a certain extent. But that's not the extent of his comments. You could word it like this for example: Nigel Latta, a clinical psychologist with experience in assessment of prisoner behaviour in court cases, indicated in an [interview?] that he was certain Lundy's public displays of grief were an act. Sourced to the NZ herald, that would be neutral and it would leave out the dubious neologism. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the problem. The phrase is clearly attributed to the guy who used it, and there's no indication whether "what Latta described" is an actual recognized condition, nor whether his assessment of Lundy is accurate. It would be nice to know who this guy is, though, with a short descriptor or Wikilink. And maybe change "described as" to "coined". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
    But yeah, Frog's idea is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

    Ariel Fernandez

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

    I have noticed the repeated posting of a section named "Concerns about Results" in the biographical article on Ariel Fernandez. This section refers to an expression of concern published by a journal called BMC Genomics on two conflicting views on a paper published by Dr. Fernandez. This is clearly a very minor point not worthy of publication in the Wikipedia article unless the intention is to discredit Dr. Fernandez. Scientific papers get challenged all the time and in this case, the challenge did not result in the paper being retracted or even corrected, so the challenge proved to be inconsequential. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that a person is discrediting Ariel Fernandez by repeatedly posting the section "Concerns about Results" in the Wikipedia article Ariel Fernandez. This section describes a trivial matter not worthy of attention. Papers get challenged all the time and in this case the challenge did not lead to any consequences. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the whole section again. Unless it is reported widely by reliable sources it shouldn't be included as it is undue and not notable. I will claim BLP 3RR exemption the next time it is added an I need to remove it. Others may wish to add it to their watchlists as well. If anyone wishes to keep it in the article they should find more sources and seek consensus on the talk page. I am still wondering if we should put the article in AfD as not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. A couple of things about this. First of all, the suddenly arrived "Haydee Belinky" is almost certainly Ariel Fernandez, the subject of the article (certain details of Talk:Ariel Fernandez, coupled with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive, should convince you of this). Second, contrary to "Haydee's" claims, and contrary to what a non-scientist might think, this is not a trivial or commonplace thing. Expressions of concern are extremely rare in the scientific literature. It is always a big deal for the editors of a journal to express such concerns publicly. It is a bigger deal for them to declare data anomalous, for an author's institutions to investigate, and for one of them, even if one of two, to say that their employee's results could not have been obtained the way he says they were. Any scientist who reads this would have serious doubts about the reliability and veracity of Fernandez' work.
    I won't get into a long argument about this. I put in some information, it was removed because of the quote, and I put it back without the quote. So, I'm done with this. But you are permitting Fernandez to manipulate his own article to suppress damning information, and you should reconsider. AlphaHelical (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you are COI then and should discuss any changes on the talk page. After you reach consensus then have another editor add them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernie Winchester

    • Ernie Winchester article;
    • Psychedelicrabbit edited Winchester's death in the article: [16] [17] [18]; however, without a reliable source;
    • Psychedelicrabbit claims to be Winchester's child: [19];
    • I'm unsure how to go about this - there are a few pieces to the puzzle missing, such as the fact that there is no hits at Google News; and Psychedelicrabbit has cited a different date of death for two of the edits (8th or 10th). Any ideas? —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's sorted. Now that Aberdeen FC have reported my father's death (at my instigation), you have your source. There is an odd circularity in how sources become 'verifiable' here that needs reconsideration generally, I would say. - Donald Winchester Psychedelicrabbit (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)psychedelicrabbit[reply]
      Wikipedia sees itself as an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. Ordinarily we'd wait until obituaries or mainstream news stories were published announcing his death, and work from those. Sorry for your loss, and for the misunderstanding here. Rklear (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmen Ortiz

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

    Some of the reasons, as given by other users:

    15:55, 7 February 2013 Ocaasi . . (→JSTOR: rephrase, a bit more neutrally …)
    16:12, 7 February 2013‎ MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 537068878 by Ocaasi. The non-neutrality is not ours; it’s a direct paraphrase of the source…)
    More input would be appreciated with respect to recent changes [by MarkBernstein] to the article.… --Bbb23, 18:56, 17 March 2013
    Harvey Silvergate’s essay for Mass Lawyers Weekly is not inappropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:33, 17 March 2013
    I don’t care if it was written by a supreme court justice. It’s an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… --Bbb23 00:27, 18 March 2013
    The Harvey Silvergate report in Mass Lawyers Weekly is entirely appropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:40, 17 March 2013
    OK, I’ll give you my humble opinion. Including the essay directly is original research. Basically it means “I think this guy is right”…. --FreeRangeFrog 18:03, 22 March 2013
    … I note the example quote [from Attorney Silverglate’s op-ed] given above is “first-year law” – and thus of little value, esp. as to what someone “would have done”, this being speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge. --Collect 13:56, 30 April 2013
    … My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.… --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013
    The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an “employee”. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article. My concern is with the Ortiz article … where there is a subsection on Swartz that … should only summarize the Swartz article and not be a mirror if it, and which is subject to BLP. --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013

    Note. In this article about U.S. Attorney for Mass. Carmen Ortiz, quotations from Attorney Silverglate and his unnamed sources add up to 117 words; quotations from Ortiz and her USAMA posse add up to 86.
    Users’ typographical errors and grammatical slips have been silently corrected. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I am not an admin on Wikipedia - though I have been in charge of large numbers of "sysops" for CompuServe etc. in the past. Just wanted to be clear here. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [For “sysop”, SUBS “esteemed wearer of the Admin’s Barnstar”.] --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dervorguilla - What is the issue here? I'm afraid I don't understand. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After a quick look it could be UNDUE, COATRACK, and copyvio. Too many biased quotes in the section from non-notable people, a 'see main' link in the section to Swartz's bio and not an article on the prosecution. It is wikilinked as well in the same section. Articles like this shouldn't be edited by Wikipedians and Amercians with a POV on the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    §FreeRangeFrog , Canoe1967: Issues are currently being discussed at Talk:Aaron Swartz:Restoring Silverglate and at Talk:Aaron Swartz:WP′s treatment of false statements.  (I ought to post a summary here, though.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 02:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Far too much COI in that article as well. Football fans from the UK and WWE fans from Australia should be invited to clean up both articles. Americans should not be editing them as well as anyone that knew of Swartz as a Wikipedian and activist before he died.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Canoe1967 (in part).  See diff (“You couldn’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who has some sort of `six degrees of separation’ connection to Swartz. Best to focus on behavior, not identity.” --HectorMoffet), and diff (“I myself have no kind of connection to Swartz…” --User:Dervorguilla).  --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 02:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more issues:

    Narendra Modi

    Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial politician from India, the dispute is about the lead. It is mentioned in the lead that Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence (emphasis mine). An editor feels that in addition to the sentence given it should be mentioned that there were allegations against him of complicity which were not substantiated in the court of law in the Lead, which I think would not be needed because 1)Reference to violence is already mentioned in the lead in the sentence His administration has been criticised for its actions during to the 2002 Gujarat violence, actions of an administration also includes the actions of the head of the administration that is Modi. 2)The fact that the allegations were not substantiated in a court of law gives a bigger reason not to mention it in the lead.Here is the revert which might help in understanding the dispute. -sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The reason Modi is controversial is not primarily because of the acts of his administration but because of allegations that he has personally aided and abetted Hindu massacres against Muslims in the 2002 Gujarat Violence. He has been accused of this from various sides, including his own supporters on hidden camera recordings. It is correct that so far none of these allegations have been upheld in court (mostly because many of the testimonies have not been accepted as evidence), but this is the reason for his controversy and appears in a multitude of reliable sources and in the body of the article. Of course it has to appear in the lead as well, anything else would be disinformative. The lead has to be able to stand on its own as a comprehensive overview of the topic, and if it does not mention these accusations it fails on that account.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above acts of Modi's administration includes Modi's acts as well, he has been accused of something but most importantly nothing has been proven in the courts, the theories about why things were not proven in the court is not something that should matter to us, an investigation team setup by the country's highest court absolved him (I am sure they have enough expertise on handling testimonies). Highlighting those accusations would be unnecessary and would result in discrediting an innocent person --sarvajna (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also we should not forget the fact that the people on hidden on cameras have lied, yes it is a fact covered by reliable sources.-sarvajna (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am involved in editing the Modi article and there is no doubt that it has attracted a substantial amount of POV contributions in recent years. That is inevitable given the controversial nature of its subject. I am also the person who suggested that this dispute concerning weight in the lead should be raised here, and I can see both sides of the current dispute. It is not like me to sit on the fence when it comes to India-related topics but that is where I am. We really could do with some uninvolved opinion regarding application of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to lead sections. Please. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is both that charges haven't been proven and for new reports like the Modinama that suggest that Modi took all action possible and that he was CM only for a few months and that his handling of the situation was better than 1969 Gujarat, when 6000 died. I support Sarvajnya. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what weight can be given to the Manushi thing but comparing 2002 with 1969 appears to be a red herring. The issue seems to be not whether he did better than before but whether he did the right thing, period. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cared to read Manushi you would know what he did was a right thing, no one can be perfect in what they did hence the reference to 1969. -sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam shepard

    The Profile of Sam Shepard does not refer to the fact that he was in the movie Resurrection (1980) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.141.114 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a BLP issue. Please feel free to add the information yourself (as long as it is verifiable) or you can raise your concerns on the article talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I LOVE Sam Shepard. Oh, by the way, the filmography section of his biography already mentions that he appeared in Resurrection in 1980. And, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Even you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eddie Murphy

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

    I'd be grateful for additional opinions concerning questionable content in this article which was reinserted today and apparently has been a source of contention for a while. (I'm new to watching the article.) The relevant talk page section is here. There are sourcing issues, but I see a larger WP:UNDUE problem with the whole thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    well I think we have to be careful of transphobia and Western-centric viewpoint when the woman concerned is probably Fa'afafine. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see: He was stopped by the police, but neither arrested nor convicted. Is there anyone here with half a brain or more who has read WP:BLP, and thinks this crap belongs in a biography of a living person? I hope not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanilla DeVille

    It was recommended by other contributors to bring this issue the BLP board (It has already been discussed without resolution on COIN, ANI and WikiProject_Pornography). [20] [21] [22] This article was proposed for deletion twice, subsequently deleted, recently reverted to the original author's (User Erpert) user page for revision at his request and is now being reviewed for reinstatement. [23] The original article, as well as its current revision, have several inaccuracies and poor paraphrasing that changes meaning. Most of the information is based on a 9 year old interview from a user-generated message board, and contains very little recent data. A couple of examples of the inaccuracies are "She entered the adult film industry in 1998-1999 after discovering how much money one of her girlfriends made by running a webcam site; DeVille then created her own webcam site and subsequently used the profits to create a porn site." and "DeVille has had sex with both men and women but she mainly has sex with women on her website." which are both incorrect statements.

    I have a COI with this article, as I am the subjects husband and co-owner of her production company. I provided additional facts and verifiable sources in previous edits, and while some were too promotional and rightfully removed, even edits allowed by COI (such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources) were deleted as well. To meet COI rules, I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide. Other editors have also expressed concern over this article (with both the original authors content as well as some of my promotional content), hence its original deletion. It has turned into an ugly battle, with User Erpert refusing to make any corrections or add any additional data or suggested sources. As others have suggested, I'm hoping that third parties from BLPN will review the the document revisions as a whole [24], in order to finally end this situation (hopefully, with either a better written article or final deletion of the inaccurate version). I, as well as Vanilla, are willing to provide any additional information and assistance that is allowable under COI. Thanks. Stewiedv (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Harris

    Patrick Harris's parents did not run a restaurant in Ruidoso, in fact his father was my attorney and I in fact was Particks' soccer coach. I did have a restaurant in Ruidoso "Gregson's" after my name. Congratulations Patrick on all your success, Bob Gregson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.70.133 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please confirm which article you are speaking of? Neither Patrick Harris nor any of the links at Patrick Harris (disambiguation) seem to apply. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they're talking about Neil Patrick Harris, there is a claim about Harris' parents there, sourced in part to: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-09-13-neil-patrick-harris_N.htm --j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vilayat Inayat Khan

    Okay, the subject isn't living, but the list of living notable students is unsourced, so I trimmed it to include only those who are subjects of their own articles here. A COI account persists in restoring them, with particular interest in adding himself and his publications. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    colin firth

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

    He was not born in 1899, and he's definetely not 113. He was born 1960. Andrew Masters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.118.125 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Thanks. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Suzanne M. Olsson

    I am Suzanne M. Olsson. I wrote a self-published book titled 'Jesus in Kashmir The Lost Tomb." I originally created a Wiki page back in 2005. I have been a headache for Wiki editors ever since. I have an interest in two pages, Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf. At some point I was banned from editing any of them due to COI. Further any references to my book on other pages was deleted on the basis my book was self-published and not allowed, although it has received high praise from most scholars internationally for the accuracy of its research. Yet I am subject to constant belittling here. Fiction books on the same topic, by authors who quoted me and acknowledged I was their source, are allowed to be included in Wiki references, yet my factual research book is not for one reason or another (either because its self published or COI). Never the less I obeyed Wiki decisions until today. The page 'Suzanne Olsson' was pulled some time ago. Recently someone unknown to me resurrected the page and for the most part there was nothing objectionable. However I felt a small part of the page, less than two lines, misrepresented the facts and took things out of context. I asked for correction on the talk page. I went to great lengths explaining why. The Wiki editors were taking a comment out of context from an article in 'Times of India. I only just read the complete article in the last 24 hours. The information was untrue and I know the man who gave those interviews to Times of India. I pointed out on the talk page that this man was a known liar. In part he had said that I was planting false evidence at a famous tomb. There could be lawsuits over such false statements but I am far away from India now. I have written to Times of India asking them for a retraction, but it may be unlikely because they may not be able to reach that same man directly again. I heard he has since been warned about giving these interviews and false information. I also explained several times that a statement made in this article was later refuted by me publicly and in my own published book after I did my own research. Yet no one will acknowledge this, explain, nor expand on the article. Thus readers are seriously mislead when they read this. I asked for help from Wiki editors. I got none. If I touch the page I am accused of COI and threatened with a total ban from Wiki. In desperation, I tried to delete the entire page and have NO presence on Wikipedia. This should be no problem because I keep getting accused by some editors of not being noteworthy enough. Another editor accused me of trying to white wash my image in hopes of selling more books. The same editors accuse me of breaking all these Wiki rules, even when trying to delete the page. I'm sure I have broken many rules, and more I am not aware of. What it boils down to is not to blame me or jump on me for alleged rule breaking, not to accuse me seeking to sell books or to whitewash and glorify my image. That's missing the point completely. In the end it's about representing facts accurately. When a Wiki editor is made aware of conflicts directly from the original source, some choose to battle instead . I asked for either complete deletion of the page or of getting the facts right, accurate, and in their full context. I usually get some smart answer back that I cannot even do this because I am offering 'original research' from a self published book by an unknown author with COI. I give up. Please get me out of here. I would rather never be on Wiki than this blatant misrepresentation of the facts. The last I heard, they wont delete the page, wont make the corrections to the facts, and will bar me from any editing. I give up. Help me please. This is about the truth being represented in Wiki, not about how upset I get with some editors here. I feel that is the real crux of the problem. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any discussion on the talk page. If the article isn't deleted, which two lines do you take issue with? (unfortunately I can't determine which lines they are based on your comment or the edit history). also please read WP:WALLOFTEXT, precise talk page statements are usually more productive than lengthy explanations. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The argument boils down to, a source [25] which is a reliable source, states claims she sais is false, and takes issue with the use of this source. The only evidence she has that they're wrong, is that she says so. No other sources to back it up. This user is a WP:TE and either refuses to read policies or doesn't understand them under WP:IDHT. She's topic banned, broadly construed, on anything about the Roza Bal and is likely going to have that topic ban extended (current ANI). She doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. And has been beating the same horse with her fringe theories for almost a decade on wikipedia under various accounts. There's your little background here.. not to mention the MASSIVE WP:COI she has with this article and subject. — raekyt 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Coffeepusher...I do that a lot too- the caffeine I mean-- here is the link to the bio page in discussion: [M. Olsson] Look at the first lines under the heading India and Kashmir. This is a quote taken from an article in the Times of India. The article goes on to say that I even tried to plant false evidence in the tomb. That is what shocked me. I know these comments are not true, and I know the person who gave these interviews was severely chastised by local Government officials. ...it says, According to local reports, Olsson arrived in Srinagar, Kashmir in 2002, "claiming to be Christ's 59th descendant".[1] Soon after she attempted to gain access to the Roza Bal tomb, "seeking DNA testing of the shrine's remains" in an effort to prove her claim of descent[2] and seeking to move the remains of the entombed persons to another location. Olsson wrote to the shrine's caretakers: My family has its origins in France, where Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene lived for 30 years after the crucifixion. There they had two sons and one daughter. We're descendants of the son. And if you wish to know more, I refer you to a book called Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Lawrence Gardner. We feel any claims you make about the sanctity of the grave are invalid [...] we would prefer to move our grandfather.end of the quote. I pointed out many times that I was not the originator of this claim about Jesus and Magdalene and being a 59th descendant. Laurence Gardner was the originator of that in his book Bloodline of the Holy Grail.He placed my family name, Des Marets in his book. I quoted this in Kashmir but after my own research I reached the conclusion that this id not happen. I published my own research, which contradicted Gardner's research. This is what I asked to have clarified on the talk page. Yet Wiki editors have refused to expand the comments to include these new facts that have been published for several years.. As the information is presented on the Wiki page, it is misleading about me. When they would not correct it, I tried to delete the entire page. Your input would be greatly appreciated. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ok, your link to the talk page is dead, and I suspect it was deleted, so I have no idea which text you have a problem with. could you please state exactly what the text says and how you would like to see it changed, briefly if at all possible. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Having spent quite a bit of time on this already, I'm going to make one last attempt at an explanation. Ms Olsson is somewhat of an expert on the subject of a particular shrine, Roza Bal, though her "expertise" has been questioned by editors here because it is regularly based on personal experiences, first-hand accounts and private beliefs, rather than the good old Wikipedia reliable sources and verification. As a result, the views she has expressed in relation to that shrine mirror what she has written in her books and so any attempt to include them comes across as an effort to promote her book and research. Unfortunately, few others share her views and so few sources (other than her books and those of her supporters) verify what she has claimed there or here. The combination of her continued claims without third-party RS and the assertion that her book is a reliable source saw her topic-banned from the shrine's article and all related articles. Many others contributing to the article have cited a series of news articles (that are considered reliable sources) in which Ms Olsson made some fairly big claims about the history of the shrine and her own ancestry. Mr Olsson has since suggested that those original claims were either untrue or inaccurate - some of her own claims she has since withdrawn; claims from others she says are untrue. Without contrary reliable sources to counter those claims (from her or others), the information has become an integral part of the shrine's story and an integral part of her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. She asked me (and the other author who played a role in fixing it after MFD) to consider some changes to her BLP based on her own account of events and subsequent retraction of various claims. She was given some advice as to how that information might be published in a way that would allow us to cite it and "fix" her BLP. In the meantime, editors frustrated with her conduct at Talk:Roza Bal have referred her to ANI asking that her topic ban be extended to relevant talk pages. Facing a ban from the talk page and presumably with the belief that nobody was going to edit her BLP in line with her wishes, she set about trying to delete/blank her own BLP as a BLP violation. I, for one, would happily have made the required/requested edits had Ms Olsson made any attempt to take the advice she was given about the claims that were made. Instead, she offered us free copies of her book, suggesting we read it and make amendments on that basis. Then she got upset when, a couple of weeks later, the edits still had not been made. What we now have is a difficult situation where the subject of a BLP has been topic-banned from editing that BLP and may soon be topic-banned from editing the talk page of that BLP. One might even suggest that posting here about said BLP is already violation of that topic-ban. If you want to wade into this 8-year maelstrom of COI and quasi-religious fervour, be my guest. Stalwart111 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think any of us is really opposed to deleteing her bio per her request, but none of us are admins. And I don't think going about it as a blanking is the right course of action. That's why it's under a PROD, but has seen previous AFD's so it may not be deleted even if that tag stays. I also don't think it's appropriate to ignore sources based on the blp's subject's objections to their validity with nothing to back it up except her word, specifically when they're critical of her. As Stalwart said, this one has warning flags all over it, so if you want to wade into these waters, go for it. ;-) — raekyt 02:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have stated that I made inaccurate and untrue claims. I did not. I have clarified this yet you repeatedly choose to ignore this. You have also claimed that my book lacks sources and that I am trying to avoid unpleasant criticism. Also untrue, because the first edition did lack resources and first reviews did reflect this...but you refuse to move on and quote any of the favorable reviews from the recent revised edition. I revised the book to include extensive sources, but if I mention them, then I am accused of original research, so I cannot say anything even what I know best to be fact. Sure I offered you the books, because you were making false statements. You yourself said there were few sources. I lived there longer than anyone else in modern times who has researched the tomb. I make no apologies for having acquired this information while I lived there. You are commenting on something that you purportedly know about (my book), yet you claim you have never read the book and you cite only reviews of the first edition. I repeatedly said it lacked full resources and those reviews reflect this. You claim the Times of India is a reliable source regardless how many times I point out the man who made those statements to the Times is NOT a reliable source. It's a vicious circle going on here. Same at the Roza Bal page- all these 'experts' making assumptions about things they know nothing about. I was there! I know dam well whether I planted false evidence in the tomb. Geesh. You act as though I am forwarding my book. No. I am forwarding the truth and clearing up misconceptions of those who were not there and are not in a position to judge.Yet you include reference to a fictional book that was based on me and my life, as acknowledged by that author, yet you claim that I am not a reliable source of information about my own life and experiences there- You guys really need to chill out and just delete the page. I really really want no part of this. I do not see you as honorable editors. You are doing more harm than good for roza bal, and me. If that article continues to appear as written,if I am blocked from correcting it or commenting on the talk pages then I will pursue this further. I have to protect myself. No it is not about self promotion or book sales. It is about truthfulness and fair balanced reporting. Just get me out of here. As you are fond of reminding me, I am a nobody writing about a fringe topic with few followers. Just let this page go.Then I will have no reason to return here or to edit anything further anywhere at Wiki. I really want nothing more to do with any of you. I dont trust you to be fair and balanced and logical. Just delete the page and we are done. Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    please everyone stop for a second. I don't care about COI, ANI, what User:SuzanneOlsson may or may not believe/have done/are doing/writing/banned/topic banned/related do/free books/etc. This is not a continuation of any of those issues, and if it is then you are on the wrong topic board because AS OF RIGHT NOW NO ONE HAS PROPOSED ANY CHANGED TO THE ARTICLE other than to have it deleted, and unless the discussion actually involves a proposed edit BLPN doesn't handle that stuff. FYI I paid attention to the ANI discussion so I do know exactly what is going on.

    Now what this discussion is about is that Suzanne has proposed that her article be deleted, which I don't have any control over. Her reasoning is because there are two lines SOMEWHERE in the article which are under dispute.

    For the third time, Can ANYONE tell me what those two lines are????!? If you aren't here to discuss those two mystery lines then you are on the wrong topic board. Cheers.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's at least the first two paragraphs under "In India and Kashmir" that use source #2, that she wants wholesale deleted, I don't know if anything else... — raekyt 03:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look above, a comment that begins with 'Thanks coffeepusher' explains the situation. A quote was inserted from an article that appears in the Times of India.The quote from that article refers to something that appeared in a book by Laurence Gardner about my family. I did my own research and reached different conclusions. I published these conclusions since 2004, yet the creator of the Bio refuses to include this information. The article as it stands is not complete and is misleading. I propse either these lines be left out, or the bio expanded to include new conclusions published later. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As in conclusions reached and published by you in your book? As in WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR? — raekyt 04:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I thought you were leaving, Ricky, err Reaky. It's called genealogy. You know, that stuff we do to try to find our ancestors? Laurence Gardner wrote Bloodline of the Holy Grail. It was all about genealogy. Baigent and Lincoln were authors who also sought bloodlines. And those Egyptian pharaohs! Wow. What books have been written about their bloodlines! E entire Bible is a stor about one family's bloodline. Now who among them and me would you li dismiss as 'original research?' Geneaology is Lots of fun. You should try it.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    your self published book about you is clearly original research as defined by wikipedia. if you still dont get that, then wikipedia is certainly better off without you than having to try to educate you about basic content policy for another five years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A self published work is a primary source, and may not be considered reliable. But in terms of Wikipedia it isn't original research, because reporting it here would only be reporting what has been published elsewhere. It may be a reliable source for the author's thoughts or description of a situation, although as a primary source there would be limitations in using it for that. - Bilby (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - content only sourcable to a self published book has no reliably published source and hence is de facto original research, particularly when the editor making the claims is the same author of the self published source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on how it is used. It is a reliable published primary source for claims about the author's beliefs. Whether or not it is a reliable source for other situations is trickier, and generally self published books aren't, given a limited number of exceptions. - Bilby (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed, there could be some instances where use might not be "original research" if there were no actual analysis or conclusions, just statements of personal belief. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original claim appears in 2 of the remaining 6 article sources, representing more than half of the total citations in the article: 1 (Times of India, cited 3 times), 2 (Asia Times, cited twice). It's not "two lines", it's more than half of what remains of the article. I wasn't comfortable including a claim like that in a BLP without multiple reliable sources and that's exactly what we had when we started. I'm still unclear as to whether she accepts she made the claim but now believes otherwise, or if she is now suggesting she never made the claim in the first place?? Stalwart111 04:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand things correctly, and I'm not sure I do, this was a belief held based on Gardner's work. Suzanne Olsson has since come to the conclusion that this was incorrect, and published such in another work. Given that, I would have thought the quickest approach would be to state that this is no longer her belief, referencing later books, and reduce the emphasis on the quote. - Bilby (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Bilby, I almost burst into tears reading your post. By gosh, you've got it right! Consider yourself hugged. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm, Suzanne. Seriously.
    Bilby, that's exactly what was suggested not long after the article was published and we asked her to publish something somewhere on her website so it could be cited (neither of us had access to her book) - see this section of User:Silver seren's talk page. I think we've since had four or five different versions of the story, from "I never said it" to "I don't believe it anymore" to "they lied about what I said". A clarifying statement (as was explained there), published somewhere we could cite, would have been enough. That's why we asked for exactly that. Stalwart111 05:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) ok, so here is what I believe can be done. The AFD is already in progress, we can't blank that section right now based on the claims above, but we can use her book in a very limited capacity PROVIDED that the edit in question qualifies under the BLP rules. What exactly are we retracting, and it would help if we could type out the exact edit to insert so there is no question as to what is being said compared to the BLP regulations. I also think that the large block quotes could be reduced without losing the content. Now if this edit with citation can't be produced I am afraid there isn't much more to talk about.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There

    I hope nothing just got deleted. I lost my reply a moment ago and am re submitting..I did not lie..There were several things under discussion and each was explained in relation to the event. I will admit that Stalwart is correct. I was asked to create a page explaining the differences between Gardner's conclusions and my own. I tried to create the page but really felt at a loss how to approach this..I kept getting knocked down for original research and I just didn't know how to approach this to their satisfaction. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, well we need that edit if we are going to be able to help you. Please give us exactly what you want the edit to say, and give us a source. I can not judge on if it will be a violation of BLP until I see the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb, ISBN 978-1-4196117-5-9 Pub date 12/12/12/ revised 3rd edition by Suzanne Olsson. pp.141,142, The Magdalene of the Old Silk Road is different from the fantasies and myths surrounding her in the west. There is nothing what so ever in Biblical material to suggest that Magdalene was Jesus' wife, and nothing to suggest he had a sexual relationship with her outside of marriage. In the Oxyrhynchus Gospels are two fragmentary manuscripts written in Greek (British Library accession numbers 840 and 1224)that mention a marriage of Jesus, but not to Magdalene, as interpreted by Fida Hassnain and Aziz Kashmiri. p. 158 There are no legends about Magdalene in France until until well into the Middle Ages.p. 160 Magdalene was not the wife of Jesus, nor the founder of the Bloodline of the Holy grail in Britain or France'. OK Is this enough, or shall I add more? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, as per the WP:BLPSPS we can't use that unless you are stating something about 'you'. are you retracting your claim that you are part of the bloodline of Jesus, or are you simply retracting the statement that you are related to Mary?Coffeepusher (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By contrast there is a family in Kashmir who were ancient hereditary caretakers of the Roza bal tomb. This is the family of Bashrat Shaheen.They claimed they were of the bloodline of Jesus through a Kashmiri wife. They claim that Jesus is the same man buried in Roza Bal tomb, Yuz Asaf. Whether following the alleged bloodline of Jesus in Europe, or the bloodline of Jesus in Kashmir, both conjoin at a grandson or great grandson named Eli. In some accounts he appears as the grandson of Joseph of Arimathea, who some believe was guardian of Mother Mary after the crucifixion. In Kashmir, he may be the grandson of a king named Pravarasena. This grandson was taken away and raised in some land far away from Kashmir. Are they one and the same? Bashrat Shaheen and I had planned to have our DNA tests done. He died before we could accomplish this. My DNA was tested by Nat Geo Genome Project in 2005. It indicates a link with Kashmir through the Afridi-Pashtuns. My family also carried the RH Negative blood group. The blood type on Shroud of Turin is the same as my family, AB. http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-shroud-blood-types-as-ab-aged-blood.html It is unclear if the Shroud blood is also a negative type. I dont know what to believe about the tomb of Jesus or of any ancestry. The Shaheen family certainly believes it happened.They had in their possession an ancient scroll with the geneaology on it. This dissapeared at the time of Shaheens death. It was a valuable document that would have been very helpful but it is gone now. I make no claims such until we have DNA evidence. It was a joint venture that Bashrat Shaheen and I had hoped to complete. He died too soon and I have not returned to kashmir to try again. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are refuting the part in the quote that says you are related to Mary? So here is the problem, and what people have been pointing to. In order to avoid WP:SYNTH we need a single source which will say that you believe you are related to Jesus, but not to Mary. The source itself needs to be talking about you in order to work around the self publication restrictions. further the claims must be exclusively about you. Are there any sources that say that? Cheers Coffeepusher (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hassnain was working with us. He wrote several books after that.. He has made mention several times that he believed both Shaheen and I were descendants of Jesus, but I dont recall if he also mentions Magdalene or not...He always gave me the impression he thought Magdalene would ultimately prove to be the real wife of Jesus...I just dont know where to look. I'll browse through the books I have here to see if he mentions anything that would be helpful. But as you all point out so frequently, this is an obscure topic with very few believers. Not much written about this. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I need some rest now. I will have to return to this after a few hours. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said on the Afd page, please provide a few simple yes/no answers to make it clear what you are disputing:

    • That you never wrote letters claiming to be the "59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth"? That cannot be disputed because you clearly stated on the ANI thread that you wrote the letter to claim it in order to "regain the tomb from his influence", referring to the person in India.
    • That you never attempted to dig up the tomb? But the article already makes it clear that you dispute that you tried to dig. So it states both sides.
    • That you never planted anything at the tomb? But the article does not say that you planted anything, just that the caretaker said he was worried about it. So it is just about his concern, not allegations of a plant that has taken place yet.
    • That the caretaker is on the take? But the article does not say anything about that.
    • That no FIR was filed and the visa was never cancelled? But you have never denied that in straight terms as far as I can see. Please just say that "no FIR was filed" and "my visa was not cancelled" and give sources for that.

    I think user:Coffeepusher is clearly fully aware of Wiki-policies on this subject and you should follow their advice. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not trying to make a stand here, just wanted to inform you guys that Times of India although considered a reliable source has been very notorious in its coverage. A quick search at Noticeboard for India-related topics might help you guys. -sarvajna (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but we are not stating anything from that newspaper in the so called "voice of Wikipedia", just using quotations with attribution, i.e. "according to the Times of India". As one of the largest newspapers in a very large country it is a source for information in that country and can be quoted with attribution. And there is a key point that needs to be made here: Ms Olsson is not in any way asserting that The Times of India made errors, or that it has a misprint, or that it invented the story. Her only line of reasoning is that the person who spoke to the The Times of India "was not telling them the truth". So she is not asserting that the The Times of India misprinted anything but that a specific person in India is unlikely to send her a greeting card this year. And her proof about the untruthfulness of the caretaker is.... ? We have not seen anything. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And it should be noted that "claims of untruthfulness" about a living person are subject to our BLP policy, even on talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TRPoD, could you link to a specific section in WP:BLP about that please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whah?? we can start with the intro "[[WP:BLP|Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) (emph added)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it says that, and that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages". But what I meant is that "claims of untruthfulness" does not appear in the WP:BLP page. History2007 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know about where you come from , but for the majority of the world calling someone a liar is a contentious and potentially libelous action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the calling of the caretaker a liar? Or that he was on the take. Please be specific. But the article does not call the caretaker a liar. Yet, it may be the case that if the caretaker gets upset he could interpret it as libel. So I think it would be good to not to call him names or a thief, or that he was somehow connected to the death of someone (I do not know who he is and how he died) as in this edit in any case. History2007 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not talking at all about the article, I am talking about the references to living persons on this page making contentious claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think we should assume that no one is a liar/thief/etc. And I think care should be taken not to say that Holger Kersten (who has a wiki page) was buying things on the side etc. as in the diff just above. Kersten must be presumed innocent as well. The presumption of innocence must prevail. That is straightforward. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    History2007, I will only respond to one of your comments above. Jesus lived in India by Holger Kersten Element Books 1999 p.246, line 26, 'A portion of the grill (being ripped out and broken into pieces) was sold to a visitor in 1989 and is in my possession'. Through private correspondence he lamented at the destruction of the tomb and how he acquired this piece of wood from the tomb. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are aware of the fact that people here have repeatedly asked you for answers to various questions and the only one you chose to answers was abut Kersten's grill. And the source does not say that Kersten bought it or that the caretaker sold it. They are both need to be presumed innocent. But what is "private correspondence" anyway? So anyway, we have seen no answers beyond that. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment : This is just resulting in war of words, if Ms.Olsson thinks that some article needs to be deleted then this is not the place. What exactly does everyone wants to achieve at the end of this discussion? Ms. Olsson, I see you complain that some guy who spoke to ToI lied, wikipedia can hardly do anything about that, may be it sounds bizarre but I request you to contact media establishment and get correct things published. -sarvajna (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The logical and proper avenue is for Ms Olsson to contact the Times of India and ask them to run an update to the story they initially published. The people at the Times of India could also very easily check if an FIR had been filed as they had stated, etc. So the proper avenue is for Ms Olsson to contact the Times of India, not debate it here. She can email them in 10 minutes, instead of debating it here for 3 days. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My Final Word

    'Genealogy without documentation is mythology.' (Jesus in Kashmir The Lost Tomb 12/12/12/ edition, p.430).'Without proof and/or DNA evidence,claims ( about bloodline of Jesus) mean nothing'. (p.436) I started out over 30 years ago to research genealogy claims about my family and desposyni that originated in popular books like 'Holy Blood Holy Grail (1982)Woman with the Alabaster Jar (1993) Hoy Blood Holy Grail (1996) and many more. I believed these authors and I set out to prove these claims were true. After several years it became apparent to me that there was no proof. Through Ahmaddi Muslims and my own research I was made aware of the family in Kashmir who made similar claims about descent from Jesus. They had been caretakers of a tomb alleged to be Jesus,, and they had a genealogy, a list of exact names from them back to Jesus. I went there in hopes of finding a link between east and west. Although there have been tantalizing clues, absolutely not one solid shred of evidence has ever been proven. I ave stated that clearly in my own book on many pages. Without the proof, we have nothing. DNA seems the only way left to be sure of anyone's claims. I cannot make claims to be descended from Jesus, nor Magdalene, nor Cleopatra, nor Charlemagne, nor any ancient and famous person without the DNA evidence. I have strongly advised others not to make such claims either. That is my final conclusion after all these years of research. This is my final word on the topic of desposyni and any claims I hoped to prove when I started this genealogy quest.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. I guess that is it. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not oppose if someone removes the whole Final Word section, however it is good to know that there is an end to this discussion. -sarvajna (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you remove it, it may be interpreted as not letting her answer the questions. So should just leave it as is so we can all go home now, before the man in the grave there gets up by himself to join this discussion too. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Leather

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

    It would be helpful if someone could take a look at the massive changes implemented by a new account (and an IP whom I suspect is the same person as the new account). The edits are messy and some are clearly contraindicated. However, some of it may be salvageable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    P. Kalyanasundaram

    Not sure if this is the right forum to mention this. I have recently opened a discussion regarding the deletion of P. Kalyanasundaram at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Kalyanasundaram.

    The reason for mentioning it are that it seems a bit of an unusual case of a biography of a living person where there are claims made in normally reliable sources which seem to be verifiably untrue and/or highly implausible. I think some guidance on the actual content of the article would be helpful, as I appreciate the sensitivies involved of writing about a living person in a way that may be quite negative and therefore I thought there might be some editors here who have a lot of experience in these sorts of issues. --nonsense ferret 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is not a form of canvassing then I do not know what is. Go read that article and try to figure out how the claims made could possibly be construed as "negative" in any degree. The claims are that the subject is a recognised philanthropist - they may be wrong (although they are sourced) but the idea that being lauded as a philanthropist is somehow "negative" just beggars belief. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting at BLPN about a living person is never canvassing, in my view. There is never a problem in having more eyes on a BLP article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, I would agree. However, what we have here is a situation where someone has nominated an article at AfD for one reason and then brought it to BLPN for another reason, but linking the two. If anyone honestly thinks that information sourced to The Hindu, including alleged interviews with the subject, is going to get Wikipedia into legal trouble before the AfD closes then I would be astonished, especially when it is most definitely not negative. Perhaps I am being cynical and for that reason I will apologise for publicly suggesting that this was canvassing; it will not change my own opinion, of course. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see your point Sitush? I'm pretty sure none of the very experienced editors at this noticeboard are likely to rush to vote at an AfD, but I was rather hoping they might offer some insight on what the long term future of this article could be. Due particularly I think to the social networking promotion of the subject the article has been recreated several times and deleted for various reasons. If it is to be kept it will require a very careful sifting out of fact from the myth that seems to be growing up around it - that is exactly the sort of thing that I don't feel I have the experience to know how to approach it.--nonsense ferret 17:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are getting hung up on the social networking stuff. Concentrate on the sources used, not the unused stuff. Effectively, you are trying to synthesise unreliable sources (Facebook etc) with usually reliable ones (The Hindu, Frontline and other "quality" Indian media). I still do not understand why you think the article is "negative". - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see - happy to clarify that point, I don't think that the article is currently negative, but I think a properly researched neutral article which shows that there is a bit of dubiety about claims made could and probably should be quite negative. It seems reasonably clear that the award mentioned in the article and reported in the newspaper is one that is paid for from a vanity publisher and not anything to do with the UN - i'm not sure how to tackle that in the article without unfairly making someone look like a fraud. --nonsense ferret 18:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easy: find some reliable sources that say so. "Reasonably clear" is your own deduction and definitely not acceptable in a BLP. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    from your comments on the AfD - it appears to be a deduction that you have also made. That is precisely why this is such a difficult issue for a BLP I think. If a normally reliable source makes a claim that ordinary people can see, including as far as I can tell both you and me, really doesn't add up then that seems to me quite a problematic case. Can I prove that he didn't meet the president of the US, or head a UN organisation, or get a UN award? I'm not sure what would count as proof of that but it does seem to have been discussed in quite a lot detail on the talkpage last time around but as it was deleted it doesn't seem to have been that much of a problem. --nonsense ferret 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of changing the article because I already know that there are no reliable sources out there that are available to me and which substantiate what you think is my opinion. What you do is, of course, up to you but hypothesising is not going to work in a Wikipedia BLP. I'm fairly open-minded about it: the AfD seems to be more about alleged failings of notability and concerns about alleged pressure from social media rather than whether he did what he did. Sometimes, ferreting for nonsense is pointless within the constraints of how Wikipedia works. I can't stop you from publishing your thoughts/deduction etc anywhere else, of course. ;)- Sitush (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad that nonsenseferret brought this here as there are distinct problems both with the article and with the AfD itself. Just so it's clear, I'm not blaming Sitush, but nonsenseferret's claims seem borne out by the article's now-deleted history. I've commented at the AfD. My comments there and here are in my administrative capacity, not as a voting editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiffany Brooks

    A few contentious edits regarding alleged "pay to play" and other nonsense by IPs. A few more eyes would be appreciated. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought when you said "pay to play" it was a euphemism for something else, but it appears that the allegation was actually her paying to play. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Jones

    The article on Max Jones (journalist) should either be removed or edited substantially. It is incredibly self-promotional and misleading. How can a child be an "expert" on Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.225.198 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have confirmed that the article is not currently protected in any way, so you are cleared to proceed with editing it substantially. If you prefer to nominate it for deletion, WP:AFD is the place to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Puff all based on SPS and "feel good interviews with a kid." Documentary never released. AFAICT, non-notable in case anyone wished to AfD it. Collect (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Shin Amano

    Article Shin Amano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who doesn't have a Wiki acct is repeatedly inserting a nonsensical, obviously unsourced personal opinion in the paragraph entitled "Shortage of brain rotation." I've tried to remove it, but the person keeps reverting the changes. Obviously, this violates the policy that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should removed immediately." Thank you. --JeanneBrice

    Jeff Green (politician)

    Jeff Green (politician) is the new leader of a party in the UK. Someone may wish to create an article before any fans do. Christian Party (UK) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any indication that Green would meet our notability guidelines? The party may be (just about) notable, but I don't see any particular reason why the person leading it would merit an independent biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be plenty of sourcing, so I don't see why he wouldn't.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          00:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    'Plenty of sourcing'? Would you care to link some sources here which could contribute to producing a biography? I can't see anything in the 21 results that Google provides that would be much use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the BBC has been covering him (and the Christian Party) since 2007 (2007 and 2010). Granted I had to search 'jeff green christian party' to find that. It can be argued that as his notability is solely for his involvement in the Christian Party its not inherited, but if it came to an AFD I suspect it would end up 'Keep'. Dont feel there is a 'need' for an article on him though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio and the NYDN

    Is the New York Daily News a reliable source for this article? I am torn as I see it is a tabloid, but I am not very familiar with it and wonder if it is as worthless as a BLP source as the Daily Mail or The Sun which I earlier removed from the article. Thanks in advance for your help. --John (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not considered a straight tabloid, no. Not in the same sense as The Sun. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a strong enough source to base contentious material on a BLP on? --John (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the material in question? A link to the article would help as well. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Odds and ends. I've linked from the title above. My instinct is to take it out as it's such a high-profile article but I don't know the US market so well. --John (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Inge Marler

    The content from Tea Party movement:

    Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.

    Sources:

    The concern: Insufficient sourcing for controversial material about a living person.

    Longstanding content being removed from Wikipedia article, citing BLP concerns. The latest reasoning is that since the initial reporting paper only has a circulation of 10,000, in a county of 40,000, it's not major enough to be a reliable source. (?!) Initial reporting done by on-site reporters from the local newspaper (Baxter Bulletin) covering the Rally, with follow-up coverage by local and national agencies. I do not believe the BLP sourcing concern is warranted for the above sentence, but I thought I'd run it by this noticeboard for good measure. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all the name was dropped, and the tea party isn't a person. I don't know what U.S. law thinks about companies and organizations being persons, but this is definitely not a BLP concern. Secondly, both of these are not generally reliable sources. The Washington Post one is a blog and Huffington post is also lacking, but the event they write about DID happen and they contain the same lines and a link to the audio of it. Lastly, the article is fully protected right now and requires an admin to respond to an edit request filed on the talk page. I see no justification for it right now, but I would bring your concerns there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP concern is not about the Tea Party movement. The content is about Inge Marler, a living person. The concern raised was that the content was not sufficiently sourced to meet BLP requirements. Like you, I also see no justification -- but I wanted to run it through here for thoroughness. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper venue per discussion about it being RS is, oddly enough, WP:RS/N. Where you can argue that a paper with a circ. of 8,800 and three "staff writers" has a "strong reputation for fact-checking." Collect (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion isn't "about it being a RS". This discussion is about whether that single sentence about Inge Marler is sufficiently sourced (see above sources) to meet BLP requirements. Regarding specifically the Baxter Bulletin newspaper article, it is a very reliable news source. Looking through their news stories, they do implement corrections, retractions and editorial revisions as required to maintain accuracy -- a hallmark of a reliable source. Please review their policy and principles regarding their reliability as a news source.
    Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way; We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context. [...] To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request. This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles.
    That applies to their reporters, staff writers as well as their several editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your source says "racially charged" and does not say "racist" - the terms are not synonyms, so what you are saying is that you would misuse a poor source to establish the point you wish to make about a living person. I fear that is not a hell of a lot better than simply using poor sources in the first place. Again WP:RS/N is thataway. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not what I am saying. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Baxter Bulletin appears to qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of a statement saying a 'racially charged' joke was told. I wouldnt use it to say anything other than that. That other sources are saying its racist - well thats a different argument. IMHO racially charged = racist, but since the US seems to want to split the two to make racism by public people acceptable that can be dealt with by saying exactly what the source says. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Gothard

    Would someone be able to check out recoveringgrace.org, and whether it can be linked to from the Bill Gothard article? I have reverted the addition of this material, but the IP editor in question is very insistent that the website is not WP:SPS. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not WP:RS for contentious claims about any living person. Collect (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the website is 'self-published' isn't actually what matters - what matters is whether it passes WP:RS standards as a reliable source. And given the WP:BLP requirement that "high-quality sources" be used for contentious material, I can't see any possibility of such a website being acceptable. If allegations of abuse are to be discussed in the article, they will need to be cited to uninvolved sources, rather than to an organisation set up for what it states are "survivors of abuse". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

    I'd like to see the community's view on the use of childrens' photographs in this article. It seems to me that photographs of named injured children are being used for obvious propagandistic purposes. No evidence is provided that these children and/or their families approve of this use, and even if they did I don't think it would be appropriate. In fact I find this to be a quite offensive cynical use of these children. Thanks for your input. Zerotalk 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:PrivacyOrder81.pdf is the Israeli law that covers it. The English translation is in the other versions section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally the English Wikipedia operates by US law. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems like parental consent is needed: Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. Zerotalk 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Joh'Vonnie Jackson

    User:Zdawg1029 insists to add this information: [26], to Michael Jackson and Joe Jackson (manager) (incredibly s/he never included it to other Jackson's pages). According to him/her, Joe had an affair with a woman in the past and due to that Joh'Vonnie Jackson did born. Zdawg alleges this with poorly sources, like gossip cites Mirror and Hellobeautiful, or Fox News, which always uses "alleged", and s/he cites Katherine Jackson book My Family where she notes this (basically all references are basing their information after this book, but there is no real confirmation made by Joe himself). This information was removed before, but Zdawg persists to include it as people who removes it is "putting "their" own personal opinion into Wikipedia." I have explained him/her the information doesn't belong to Michael's biography and that it still being a BLP violation to Joh'Vonnie and Joe lifes, but s/he insists that I am wrong and the information is "PAINFULLY OBVIOUS"--when the only painfully is that Michael once said "Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on the TV screen don't make it factual". Can somebody inform me if I am wrong with this? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this in The Telegraph regarding Joe's alleged child. I agree the three other previously posted sources were questionable at best but I think the Telegraph is considered a reliable source. I posted this on the article talk page as well. What do other editors think? (Khan, Urmee (September 14, 2009). "Michael Jackson's secret sister JohVonnie Jackson says she was 'rejected'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 May 2013.)Coaster92 (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tullian Tchividjian

    Sorry to trouble you kind people again - but could someone take a look at this edit that I made at Tullian Tchividjian. I removed a controversy section referenced almost entirely to blogs (even though if they are blog posts by renowned experts). But User:BaptistBolt is insistent that the material belongs. StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The 'Controversial Views' section doesn't belong in the article at all. Without an independent, credible source asserting that Tchividjian's views are controversial, there is nothing to justify a section. The blogs cannot be accepted as WP:RS as they are self-published: see WP:BLPREMOVE. In any case, even if they were admissible, all it could show would be that there was a debate - they wouldn't indicate who's views (if any) were the controversial ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    People who do not identify as prostitutes in category Prostitutes

    We currently have several BLPs listed in subcategories of Category:Prostitutes. Most of these are people who once worked as prostitutes to make ends meet rather than people who identify as prostitutes or pursued prostitution as a long-term career (for example, Jade-Blue Eclipse or Patrícia Araújo). This seems like both a violation of the WP:BLP policy and a significant departure from how we normally categorize people. In my opinion, if the person does not identify as a prostitute, they should not be categorized as such. If a person worked for a year as a dishwasher when they were 18, we don't put them in the Dishwasher category. Kaldari (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - unless the category has some rational importance to the BLP, it should be removed. All too often BLPs get categories as a form of "pointed edit exercise" by those who wish to disparage the living person, and it is well past time this stopped. Collect (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A "former prostitutes" category might be the best way to deal with this. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I note that a quick random sampling of these articles shows that at least some of these are not sourced: regardless of any other controversy about this, the category should be removed unless its explicitly mentioned, with a source, in the article.-- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Amiram Goldblum

    Three separate editors are now working on this article to include as many smears as possible. Goldblum is an Israeli leftist activist, and at least one of the editors currently active there is a devote of Steven Plaut -- so that we're getting a concerted attempt at POV editing to make Goldblum look bad via cherry-picking of his own comments and other people's views. For more background on the POV element of certain editors, this ANI discussion might help. But please do have a look at the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just one more example of the abuse to which WP:BLPs on controversial people are subjected. I think we need a discussion somewhere on more enthusiastic admin sanctions against this kind of nonsense. I hope some admin takes some action at ANI. Left a note there:
    Dear Administrators: Please note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions.
    FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Duncan McTier

    I'd appreciate some input and advice regarding this edit. The reference - now removed - is here. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, per WP:BLPCRIME. If and when this becomes a huge thing (with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) and there is an actual case, with actual criminal charges, then yes. Otherwise no. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok. It's referenced, and the entry states what the reference does, that he was accused, not convicted, nor guilty.

    Further, this is a newsworthy event. I put it back in, Free Range Frog removed it. I won't reinstate.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    It doesn't matter that it's newsworthy. Wikipedia is not a news agency, and for BLPs when there is nothing more than an allegation or suggestion of a crime having been committed, we err on the side of caution. As I said, if this becomes an actual criminal case or receives substantially wide coverage then it can be added. Right now, no. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim suttle, lock?

    We are having a election soon here in omaha. would it be possible to get a review of the Jim_Suttle page and then have it locked down? Its being messed with in all sorts of ways. --72.213.25.120 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the contribution you made here[27], I think the editor was correct to revert. The source does not indicate that he is "heavily anti-gun" or that he "wishs (sic) to ban [guns] from the omaha city limits", it says that he "support[s] a local ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity magazines". The phrase "heavily anti-gun" is an editorial judgment on your part, not a fact. I doubt that Suttle would agree. Wikipedia's policies are to present facts in accordance to how they appear in reliable secondary sources, not to print the opinions of individual editors. Please see WP:OR and WP:LABEL for more details. GabrielF (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan

    An anon IP user and now a registered user are repeatedly inserting a ludicrous and extraordinarily-poorly-sourced conspiracy theory into this article, which flatly accuses the president of the United States of conspiring with the Taliban to shoot down a U.S. Army helicopter. Not only is this is a ludicrous conspiracy theory, it also represents a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy - it is an unsourced/poorly sourced accusation of treason. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Saket_Agarwal

    Saket_Agarwal Not notable, barely any sources and reads as though it was created by the user himself (see the personal information and the edit history)

    Ryder Skye article

    So, with regard to Ryder Skye's birth date, an IP kept getting reverted at the Ryder Skye article, including by me.[28][29][30] Then editor Tasseorace (talk · contribs) showed up to revert me and maintain the IP's changes, and we further exchanged words via edit summaries:[31][32][33]. Tasseorace also showed up at my talk page to maintain that the birth date I reverted is correct. On my talk page, I told Tasseorace the following: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. In this case, WP:Verfiability is what matters. We cannot take your word for it that Skye is the age you state she is, not without WP:Reliable sources. I understand that you have directed me to sources on this matter, but I don't know how reliable they are and still don't completely know what to make of this situation. You have made WP:BLP violation edits to this article, like this one from last year, apparently the actress has edited the article as Ryderskye, and you have reverted Ryderskye while editing as an IP. Like I stated in this edit summary, I am taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you can make your case there."

    So, yes, some attention on this matter from this noticeboard is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any RS for a birthdate. Her modelling agency and the adult movie database are both lame sources and could be intentionally incorrect. Unless you can find a reliable source then leave the birthdate out for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly have no problem leaving the birth date out. But as you can see from that article's edit history, Tasseorace/the aforementioned IP has continually re-added the birth date that Tasseorace believes is correct. Hopefully, once Tasseorace reads my latest replies on this matter, and yours or anyone else who agrees with you about this, Tasseorace will agree to leave any mention of Skye's birth date out of this article. If not, then Tasseorace does face being blocked and the article will likely be semi-protected or full-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try removing the date with an edit summary referring to a talk page discussion and add Template:Uw-ew to their talk pages if they revert. If they violate 3RR or edit without consensus then you could escalate to admin. 1978 is probably correct but without RS then it shouldn't be included. See: Hoang v. Amazon.com for a similar case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tasseorace responded to the comment I previously left on my talk page about this, and it seems that he or she would be willing to leave any mention of Skye's birth date out of the article (though he or she clearly wants the 1978 date to remain). Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rather have no date than an incorrect one. Any date other than 1978 is incorrect. To say that her own agency is a "lame" source is ridiculous. If you have any knowledge of how the adult industry works, Ryder would have to have and show valid ID in order to get legitimate work through her agency and that site would have the least "lame" information on this matter. I agree the Adult Film Database would probably fall under the "lame" category though. If there is no birthdate that suits me fine, like I said I just don't want an incorrect one. Tasseorace (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Biograpy Supriya Devi

    The picture depicted as photo of Smt Supriya Devi on the right hand side of the Wikipedia article is perhaps picture of Smt Sabitri Chatterjee, another famous actress of Bengali cinema. Kindly check. Regards, Susanta Majumdar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.253.134.229 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Supriya Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't have an image. Which article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=555100866"