Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive61

John G. Roberts

• John G. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - introduction of defamatory content to BLP // Anastrophe (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• DegenFarang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated pushing of material about inauguration into lede; today pushed clearly defamatory claims from a blog into the lede. ongoing pattern of disruption for a month now.// Anastrophe (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=prev&oldid=277594935

Text has been removed, user has been warned. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam Stenavich Changes

A false statement regarding a situation with an arrest and no play time in the 2005 Rose Bowl has repeatedly been added to this biography–and I've repeatedly removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.66.9.43 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will continually add it after you remove it. If you look at these articles :http://www.michigandaily.com/content/stenavich-arrested-disorderly-conduct

http://www.sportsrant.com/university-michigan-football-player-arrested-urinating-barroom-floor-a7849.html

Keep removing it, I'll just put it back to where it is supposed to be.Keystoneridin (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic

Darko Trifunovic entry [1] is code red. This entry is reprehensible and libelous and violates Wikipedia policy on NPFs (Non Public Figures). The entire article is based on either footnotes that do not mention darko or link to third and fourth rate sources with nary a primary source. Darko has shown tremedous restraint in not suing Wikipedia in Serbia given the attitude of Wikipedia admins who seem to take delight in bullying reasonable requests to delete the article. Resistk (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of the bullying by a so called administrator:

"What exactly do you mean by "NPF"? That term is not used normally in Wikipedia parlance, western media or legal parlance that I know of. You have not established grounds for deletion of the article. Please stop trying until you can explain and justify the reasoning. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)"

This of course is Non public figure = NPF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

The administrators on this article are out of control, bellicose and running a tabloid vendetta operation, if nothing gets done, we will request arbitration as a prelude to libel litigation if necessary to stop smears and libels on NPFs.64.203.193.183 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - As background, there was a nasty BLP violation on this page by an anon, User:4.152.24.176. It wasn't reverted for a couple days, then User:Wilerch got in an edit war over it, blanking it, then only removing the BLP vio (he was still reverted a few times).

Rod Dreher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then registered and requested deletion of Rod Dreher. Confirmation is needed as to whether this is really Rod Dreher, the conservative blogger [2]. Wkdewey (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't see why need to need to conirm anything. The article contained slanders and should now be deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher 2‎. It is a disgrace that it probably won't be.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beau Biden

Beau Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Andyamsler has made only three edits on Wiki, all on Beau Biden's article, without disclosing what appears to be a conflict of interest. I thought the name sounded familiar, so I found his current bio here: [3] It states the following: "Recently, Amsler held a position as the regional field director for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) in southeast Iowa. Before that, he served as an assistant public information officer for Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden." The user added the last edit after I had already given him notice about COI and sourcing at his talk page. I thought that an admin might like to get involved in this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:COI/N rather than here, and it doesn't really need an admin... I have explained on his talk page why the source is insufficient for the text he writes -- the current boiler-plate message is so widely-worded as to be useless and you haven't given any explanation beyond edit-summaries, so he probably doesn't understand the issue. New users are unlikely to check the page history to understand why their text has been removed! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 12:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no onus to declare a COI. If his edits are biased, point him to NPOV. Maybe he'll catch on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible multiply violations of BLP

Certain editor, keep inserting ([4] [5]) questionable material about prominent living persons to the dubious "organization" article without providing proper and sound referencing as required per WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity,; Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And similar. I informed that editor about BLP issues on different development [6], but in vain. I would like to request assistance from neutral editors as I do not want to revert warring over it, or to be accused of stalking if I start lecturing about BLP issues. M.K. (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Levance Fields

The page for Levance Fields needs to be locked so that anonymous accounts can not edit the page. An anonymous individual has vandalized this page frequently over the past THREE MONTHS(!!) with the same line about Levance "getting owned" by Louisville. The wording is biased to say the least and the edit is not relevant information.

After undoing the vandalism, the user will come back to repost the same edit. This has continued on for many months now and a longer lock should be considered. It is very tiring seeing this vandalism appear in my watchlist every single day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infamousjre (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Subic rape case

I just chanced on this article. At first glance it looks like a BLP mess - blow by blow details, unproven allegations, police reports, etc., about a rape accusation, the possible victim, and the accused perpetrators. If anyone would care to take a look, much appreciated.Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Article uses many poor quality sources, including blogs and primary sources. Some specifics are listed on the talk page. This article is commonly used in invalid arguments, but silencing those invalid arguments at the source seems like it would be a step in the right direction. SDY (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kjell Inge Røkke

Kjell Inge Røkke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article is not balanced in my view, Røkke is by no means considered a criminal and the content has been added without any comments on the discussion page, and with an agressive statement regarding vandalism regarding my previous removal of the allegations that he is a criminal. I suggest the latest edit be removed in full. Ulflarsen (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the criminal conviction is sourced, including that he served prison time. I'm not sure why you'd get 120 days for illegally obtaining a boat license... So perhaps that could be explained. The article definitely needs more general information - as it is, its basically a rack on which to show the criminal conviction. Even so, the conviction will probably remain in the article even when it is fully fleshed out unless the sourcing turns out to be insufficient (don't speak the language, myself). Is there a Norwegian version of this article that can be translated? Avruch ^T 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced, and the article was trimmed to contain what information could verified in English and through translation software. The infobox was changed from criminal to crime. The conviction appears to be legitimate, I do not see anyone disputing he was convicted and served prison time. It's not appropriate to raise issues and a couple hours later, remove information that you are disputing from the page before anything is determined. This needs to be discussed on the article talk page, not POV'd in editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that one should try to sort out disagreements on the content on discussion pages. After I removed the label criminal and the criminal infoboks, this diff I stated that on the discussion page.

After some time my edit was reversed without any engagement on the discussion page but with an agressive message in the edit summary, "Rv vandalism/removal of verified notable information" and I then felt that the correct action was to alert the wider community about this. I fully agree that there should be information about Mr Røkkes sentence in the article, that has been widely covered in the Norwegian media and would constitute censorship if kept out. But that does not make the guy a criminal. So the infobox criminal should be removed and so should the category criminal. Ulflarsen (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edison Chen's prior lives?

In Edison Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), editor Benjwong (talk · contribs) has added, and continues to restore, a section about a "feng shui master's" " reincarnation analysis" of Chen. Discussion at Talk:Edison Chen#Past life, reincarnation analysis. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that speculation by a "feng shui master" about someone's reincarnation is not a WP:RS as required for a WP:BLP. Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also printed in South China Morning Post in English. That is a reliable source. Nobody is asking the user to believe or disbelieve. It is just cultural contents for the article. Benjwong (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Per WP:BLP, we write conservatively about living subjects.
2. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, we don't include fringe theories/pseudoscience details about an individual, unless said individual made the claim himself. Chen makes no claims about his feng shui or reincarnation beliefs in either source - thus we can't include this section in his article. On the other hand, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King documented his personal experiences with using mediums to contact deceased relatives and politicians in a series of diaries. Thus, those details are perfectly acceptable in his article, in spite of Wiki's policy on fringe theories. --Madchester (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I think you are twisting this rule to mean "spiritually conservative". Talking about reincarnation is alot more conservative in eastern culture than talking about the scandal.

2. To call fung shui an extremist and fringe theories - exposes your possible misunderstanding of the culture. A person in the Chinese entertainment circle of this level of fame has plenty of these types of public analysis. It is no different than using a source that points out an individual is christian. Literally it does not carry any more weight than that. The individual does not have to say he/she is a christian for that secondary source to count. In fact wikipedia prefers secondary source. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong, I think you're missing the point. U.S. newspapers print horoscopes, and that doesn't make the horoscope a reliable source as to the individual that they purport to describe. The South China Morning Post, if reporting that the FSM speculated about Chen, is a reliable source that such speculation occurred. but the speculation itself remains unreliable, even if the existence of the speculation is verifiable. TJRC (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Horoscopes are not reliable. They are anonymous and do not point to any single individual. I don't see why you are bringing this up. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that you added to the article? TJRC (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Has or has not is not the point. Lot's of things in this world can't be proven. Heaven, hell, whatever. In simple terms, this entry about past life is, "Someone credible said something not proven through a credible channel". It depends whether or not you think the whole thing is relevant at all. I'm not a wizz at wiki policies, so I won't comment on that. But definitely don't bring this to the same level as any old computer-generated horoscope. Dengero (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether reincarnation, etc. exist, but whether Chen himself has any opinions about them. Benjwong is making the assumption that b/c Chen is Chinese and in the HK enertainment industry, Chen automatically believes in feng shui and reincarnation. To include the current details in the article, you need to provide the burden of proof that he actually has such beliefs per WP:RS (incl. its provision of fringe theories/pseudoscience). Unless Chen makes these claims personally (or agrees/disagrees with said feng shui master's analysis) the details are irrevelant to the article, if not potentially libelious per WP:BLP ---Madchester (talk)

Please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"A fengshui expert somewhere said Chen's past life is XYZ".

"A car        expert somewhere said Chen's last car was XYZ".

Both would fit into the wikipedia biography guidelines just fine. It makes no difference whether Chen has ever publicly come out to say his last car was actually a XYZ automobile. A car expert somewhere knew his last car was an XYZ model. If the source is reliable, it goes into wiki. Chen may actually be a motorcycle driver. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not have a rule that requires public acknowledgement from the LIVING BIOGRAPHY subject. SCMP is reliable with credibility. SCMP also say Dala Lama was reincarnated. It has the right to, even if it cannot prove such is true. Benjwong (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again. SCMP is reliable with credibility. Do you have to believe it, absolutely not. Benjwong (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This information is poorly sourced possibly defmatory (a christian priest) information about a living person. It cannot be included. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me is it more defamatory to be a priest than to be involved in a sex scandal. Benjwong (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, How can you say it is poorly sourced when it was commented by a known person and posted in a known newspaper. And the fact you repeatedly deleted [7][8][9] the concerned section while a discussion was going on is purely destructive in trying to form a consensus. Dengero (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced because it is one non-notable person's personal and possibly defmatory opinions about a living person. The fact that you repeatedly added the possibly defamatory section to the biography of a living person after being repeatedly warned (and soundly rejected here) is purely destructive in both trying to form a consensus and in trying to do no harm. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked very anonymous non-notable journalists are able to claim Tibetans reincarnate on newspapers. These sources are allowed into wiki. Your bending of wikipedia policies to your favor is really weak. TJRC, Hipocrite and Madchester so far cannot tell the difference between Three Life Book and a typical horoscope. This indicates the topic maybe alittle out of your area. Is like saying the Bible is just a bunch of tabloids and brush it off. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Benjwong (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a pop-singer. Where are there other similar examples? Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A pop singer, a religious figure and William Lyon Mackenzie King technically all fit under wikiproject biography. If you wanted, you can fit similar contents into Faye Wong, Nicholas Tse and possibly some less-notable ethnic singers in rural China if you look hard enough. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

King actually documented his personal use of mediums and they're readily accessible in Canada's national archives. There's no evidence of Chen holding any beliefs of feng shui and/or reincarnation. You can't insert third-party analysis of one's personal beliefs, when such beliefs have not been made public. This goes back to the presumption of privacy per WP:BLP; you can't discuss a detail about an individual that's not public knowledge. Again the policy states: It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives Such exceptional claims require exceptional sources for inclusion. --Madchester (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistakened on the belief part. Fungshui is not listed as a faith. It is more like a calculation. Also this is not private, it has never been. The material sat on the internet since 2002. The source looks pretty good to me. If you made a complete list of fengshui analysis about these celebrities being aired on tv weekly with magazine, newspaper coverage, this would be nothing. Your call for sensationalism is more like a call for censorship. There is no censorship on wiki. Benjwong (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, if such feng shui and reincarnation beliefs are so commonplace in the HK entertainment industry, then it would be very easy to locate a reliable source where Mr. Chen discusses his personal beliefs on these topics. Per WP:RS, the burden of proof is on the contributing editor to find a source indicating Chen's actual beliefs on these topics.

Also, please don't attack other editors for not sharing your viewpoint or background on these topics. Please assume good faith Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) --Madchester (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am looking around wikipedia. Editors are writing about athletes using steroids, and they haven't even confessed yet. There is no burden of proof. Court trials haven't even started. How come you are specifically holding Chen to confess about his reincarnation. I didn't know reincarnation was so sinful. I am really learning something new today. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Admitting and someone saying something is two different things. Many artists don't comment about drugs, yet there are reports of them using it. Does that mean we can't put those reports in because they are defamatory and the artist never commented about them? Dengero (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No response for a week? Dengero (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This was put back by Dengero and then TJRC deleted it. Please follow Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion or Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. There is no consensus reached to make such a deletion. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming a consensus to include it? TJRC (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was sparked by the deletion of the content. Hence if no consensus is reached, the deletion is revoked until further consensus can be made? Dengero (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dengero, we're talking about a BLP violation here. This is not about a matter of taste. I've again reverted it. This is not contrary to WP:3RR, which does not apply to "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." You've already had an admin strike the material citing WP:Protection policy#Content disputes prior to protecting; is that not sufficiently clear? The default position, pending resolution, is that this material should not be added. TJRC (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please continue in section below. Benjwong (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IP user adding info on Kelly regarding a controversy regarding the reporter and Britney Spears. I have reverted the edits three times and warned the IPer about WP:RS. I also discussed the reverts on the article's talk page. Willking1979 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: IPer added the same controversial info along with the two sources I reverted earlier: [10] Willking1979 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this material as well. --Tom 22:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Toronto1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Somebody please explain to this user why my reversion of his unsourced edits to Natasha Richardson and explanation of BLP policy is not grounds for him hand out content deletion warnings and accuse me of harassment and a lack of common sense. It might save me from blocking him from 24 hours so he can do some reading. Mfield (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Krieglstein

This article doesn't seem to merit mention in an encyclopedia. The writer is a family member of the person writen about and has seemed to greatly exaggerated this person accomplishments, achievements and encyclopedic merit. Such as, the College of DuPage doesn't have at Valedictorian, nor has it ever. Though the writer states that Tom Krieglstein has won this honor. Also stating that as person is famous for simply being a the Barack Obama rally on election day 2008 carries no merit for encyclopedic mention (thousands were there and photographed that day, do they all need pages?) As a businessman that runs a small (3 person ) business that has never been worthy of major media attention or encyclopedic merit also needs to be questioned. Why does this page exist? I suggest that this article be removed in full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthrus (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthrus (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP policy concern - if you think the article's subject isn't notable, you should look into deletion processes. I'd suggest AFD would be the most appropriate option here. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You need also to assume good faith here, and to keep in mind that if you know the article's subject in real life, as you claim here, you should monitor your own perspective closely for neutrality. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of criminals

Is there a notability guideline or something regarding criminals? I have a very difficult time with these articles. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have to be how many secondary reliable sources can you find on the criminal? Just being a criminal isn't notable, theres plenty of them. If there was wide media coverage (national/global) then likely they're notable. If it was only covered locally, then likely they're not. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the rejected Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which would've encouraged a more responsible approach to this problem. MBisanz ^talk 05:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There has also been a recent, tho very lightly-debated, significant change in the definition of the American Criminal category. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with Yasser Latif Hamdani article

• Dear editor, the BLP Entry on my life Yasser Latif Hamdani is subject to a very vicious edit war by a number of sockpuppets including one who goes by YLHamdani and is an impostor. The users/IP Vandals are insistent that I am an Ahmadi by faith because my late father was an Ahmadi by faith. To this end they've produced an article in which it says that my father was an Ahmadi which is true. However, I am not an Ahmadi and I have made it quite clear on several occasions and it is not because of any other reason but because I genuinely don't concur with a number of Ahmadi religious beliefs. The reason why the said person is misusing Wikipedia to slander me is because in recent years the Ahmaddiya community has become subject of terrible violence and very often endangered for having a different set of beliefs. The said person is trying to provoke mob violence against me because of my political opinions about a secular and liberal Pakistan. It is not difficult to forsee that this might end up with potentially very severe consequences for my livelihood and life itself. Kindly take note and please help me out.Yasser Latif Hamdani (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know how Wikipedia would dteremine the identity of living persons? And inspite of the invidious propoganda against me, I will continue to label myself an Ahmedi. Yes, Pakistan had made conditions difficult for us but that's no reason for me to renounce the faith and accept another. I will not bow down. --YLHamdani (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have warned YLHamdani for vandalism, having a username that breaches policy, refactoring talk pages, breaching 3RR and personal attacks. It is clear that the edits are not supported by reliable sources, and this user's conduct is disruptive. There is also an issue of sockpuppetry using an IP address [11]. Fences and windows (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ADMIN HELP NEEDED. I have off-Wikipedia confirmation from Yasser Latif Hamdani, the subject of the article, that Yasser Latif Hamdani is his username, and YLHamdani is impersonating him. YLHamdani is edit warring still. I have reported him at WP:AIV. I think the article also needs semi-protection for a while to prevent sockpuppet IPs continuing the edit war. Fences and windows (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Indf-blocked YLHamdani (he can try and prove he is the subject if he wants), and took the issue to WP:ANI. Rd232 ^talk 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick intervention; this was getting very nasty. Fences and windows (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Caban Cruz

I've spent a chunk of the evening cleaning up vandalism at Carlos Caban Cruz. In the course of looking at it, though, the article appears ill-cited. About all a Google search turned up is other cites mirroring the Wikipedia article.

One of the vandals left a link to http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1006.htm, which alleges that the claims made in the article about POW status and some of his military decorations are bogus. However, there's nothing on that site that's verifiable in the disproving of the claims.

I left a talk message for the original creator of the page, but his last edits were in January, so I'm not expecting a response. My instinct is to pare back the article or just delete it outright for failing verification, but I'm not sure what the best approach is, especially if the article has been mirrored. So, I bring it here for a few extra sets of eyes, opinions, and experience with these cases. Feel free to farm this out to a Wikiproject as appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems highly likely that the article is a hoax. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP says to remove anything that isn't verifiable. There was nothing left, so I speedy deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am the author/creator of that entry, and I am in contact with the person of interest. Please help me understand how to form the entry into acceptable shape. cognitonium (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically what is needed is unfakeable evidence that at least the most important claims in the article are true. If, for example, he appeared on a list of POWs available from a .gov site, that would help a lot. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk question

Is this question a BLP violation? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the OP was asking a question out of mere interest. And at least he did it on the Reference Desk rather than the subject's article talk page. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the BLP violation comes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Theroux

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

The Alexander Theroux entry contains accusations of plagiarism without recourse to citation. This is a rather serious case of abuse against a living author. I do not think I have to stress what bearing such accusations might have on the career of a professional writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.24.158 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial reaction is ouch, WP:OR. But NYT, no less, covers it in detail [12]. Needs rewriting (to tone down - the plagiarism is only a couple of paras and author claims confusion with his notes) and sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well sourced but it is a definite weight problem for this to be the only thing discussed in the article -- to such a degree that I would favor removing the section unless a more balanced account of the rest of his work could be added. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's too much detail there now--even if there were lots more material about other matters, the "plagiarism" section goes on longer than appropriate. However, this was a notable episode for the author. I'd suggest cutting the discussion drastically or even deleting it, but including the NY Times article in the list of external links, so that when this article is improved that source will be readily available.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Or, better, one could edit it in the manner Rd232 just did, which looks fine to me. Well done. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Does need more material on other issues though. Added an expand notice to suggest that. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Aristide von Bienefeldt

This biography is complete bollocks. No such writer, no novels. Aristide Von Bienefeldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.57.244 (talk • contribs) March 4, 2009

No such article has ever existed, either, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He probably meant Aristide von Bienefeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (lower-case "v"). TJRC (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious name that sounds like a hoax (very close to Aristide from Bielefeld, and Bienefeld is German for bee field). Probably not notable, but you can order one of his books from the publisher stated, just not in English. [13] --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated, not sure if it meets WP:AUTHOR though. Dutch WP deleted it in 2007 as self-promotion (nl:Aristide von Bienefeldt); in view of which maybe it should be AFD'd to test inclusion here. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know nothing about Dutch publishers, but it looks very much like self-published to me. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Meulenhoff is a vanity press (it claims to publish Dutch editions of people like Günter Grass[14]), and I don't think a self-published book would get the kind of press coverage claimed. One of the quotes is "A respectable publishing house wouldn’t have bothered to send this piece of trash back to its owner", but that may just be insulting rather than a factual claim. Rd232 ^talk 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald

This entire article is based on slanderous rumors.Fodient (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The rumours are discussed in at least one reliable source (The Sunday Times), but seem to come mostly from Spy magazine and Kitty Kelley (author of the S Times piece), and are stated in WP as fact; and the entire article is about the alleged affair with George H. W. Bush - yet the Bush article doesn't even mention it. This would seem to fall into Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria (relationships =! notability); yet somehow I don't think it would be deleted at AFD, not least because of the various claims of influence over Bush during his vice/presidency. Not sure what to do. Is there enough material out there for a proper bio? Can it be cleaned up? Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is a bad-faith report: Fodient, having been threatened with a block for repeatedly putting that bit about the gerbil into Richard Gere, decided to violate WP:POINT by making massive deletions from this article as payback (and to make things worse, he then tried to cover his tracks by doing it again using his IP.

But anyway ... first, the Spy article wasn't the only one to analyze this in depth (LA Weekly did a similar piece a year or so before, but I haven't been able to get a hold of it). I have not seen anyone question Spy's reliability, and I would be happy to share a scanned copy of the article with anyone ... it discussed the rumors in great detail, and tried to assess whether they were true or not. In fact, I'd consider them a more reliable source than Kelley (and the part about Nancy Reagan spreading the story about the 1981 incident around did, as she noted, pass her publisher's vetting process).

I admit there's really nothing else out there that hasn't been covered or written about within the context of this alleged affair, so there's no coverage of her independent of that. And really, I don't think the article presents the affair as fact ... I tried very hard to just stick to the facts of the stories as reported, and never said that the two of them had the affair. (Though it was a long time ago, and I can see where the tone needs to be changed in some places). Daniel Case (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barry Minkow

Could people take a look at this article? A quick look suggests that it is a BLP nightmare, but I can't respond immediately, and would be glad if others could. --Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does need a lot of the kind of sourcing for the extensive detail of the fraud schemes that would be easy to get if this all happened today but is difficult for something that happened 20 years ago. Until we get that sourcing, the article should be limited to what its existing sources say, which admittedly is overbroad. Daniel Case (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubbed with fire.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson

Carina Axelsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (propose for deletion)

I have been editing this article for a bit of time now. Essentially, the version that is up now which has been repeatedly reverted is composed almost in its entirety of quotations from blogs such as blogspot and wordpress, and is now essentially a fan page. The references include both erroneous and outright incorrect statements, such as languages not spoken and a career as a model which has never taken place. I have tried to discuss this rationally with the fan involved but to no avail.

As the sources are unverified and unreferenced, and this is a living person, I propose its deletion in its entirety. Editing is fruitless. The individual about which this page is written has no notability beyond vanity press books and a relationship with a titled aristocrat.

Thanks, PR 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Shivraj Patil

I seem to have gotten myself involved in a bit of an edit war at the above-named article. I'd appreciate the views of some clueful BLP-types on whether I'm out of line. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Monica Conyers

• Monica Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — I'd be grateful for a couple more eyes on this article. She's (frankly) one of the least popular politicians in Detroit, except in her own district, and the local media in particular can't stand her, so it's hard to maintain a balanced article. As you can see from the recent history, IPs have been adding things that are intended in good faith--that is, they are representative of the local media coversage--but seem to me fall shy of our BLP policies. In particular, I don't see how we can include the quotation from television the IPs would like to add, given that I can find no written source for it. Do others disagree? Does a live television show, as reported by a viewer, count as a reliable source? Chick Bowen 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at this page for the first time, so I may be missing something, but it's not obvious to me why this particular statement, lacking any analysis, reactions from others, or other controversy as reported in a reliable secondary source, is relevant, especially in a section called "Controversies." If it actually leads to a controversy reported by secondary sources, then it may well belong in the article, but at the moment it's just something else she said. People say lots of things, they don't all belong in the article. For example, if the Freep writes another editorial calling it a foolish thing to say and adding this to the list of reasons she should be removed, I'd then think it might be relevant (and then you'd also have a reliable secondary source stating that she said it!); but not based on what's there now. Just my opinion, though, your mileage may vary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of that. This sort of thing has been a persistent problem. I semi-protected the page for several months, but that seemed less than ideal, and if it needs to be done again I'd rather not be the one to do it, since I've been doing much of the reverting. Chick Bowen 03:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Erwin James

Erwin James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Erwin James is the pseudonym for a writer who served time in prison for murder. One or more editors have pieced together some official biographical information and added his possible real identity to the Erwin James article. This identification is original research unsupported by any reliable source that specifically links James to the person. Regardless of the accuracy of the identification, this is unverified speculation and original research about a living person and as such I feel it's not appropriate for inclusion in the article. I'm requesting some extra sets of eyes on the article to assess the situation and possibly protect the article if the information keeps getting added. --Muchness (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the talkpage of the user who initially added this, drawing his attention to WP:V and WP:BLP. The reversion by the IP is potentially something of a concern. Will keep an eye on the article too. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. --Muchness (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be completely unsupported WP:OR. I would consider requesting oversight for the relevant edits. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The user who added the material's replied on my talkpage, and I've answered there (please feel free to chip in if you think I missed anything/got anything wrong). I think it was a good-faith addition, and that he's amenable to complying with policy on this, but Rd232's suggestion seems sensible. Should we bring this explicitly to admin attention? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see this was done last night after all. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The alleged real name of Erwin James has been posted again, this time to the article's talk page (diff). The talk page may need to be oversighted and protected as well. --Muchness (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the talk page and asked for oversight. Added a message on talk about the issue. Needs an eye keeping on it. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a delicate situation. Thanks for your on-going attention. --Muchness (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Was it the same user as before who added this? Gonzonoir (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The name was added by one registered user and two IPs:

• Dr George Matthews (talk · contribs)
• 137.222.136.87 (talk)
• 203.129.39.151 (talk)

--Muchness (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lesley Visser

Lesley Visser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like the copyvio IPers are back at it on this article. Just reverted another set of edits by an IP which comes from a range (75.xxx.xxx.xxx) that has committed copyvios on that article in recent months. More eyes are needed on that article. Willking1979 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article could use help improving it if anybody is interested. Not really BLP violations per say, just lots and lots and lots of cruff, imho. Anyways, --Tom 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)ps, just to clarify, if copy right violations are happening, they should be dealt with appropriately, just that there is not the usuall "wife beater" stuff, more of overly praising type stuff and unencylcopediatic tone, yadda, yadda, --Tom 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this page and maybe protect or block ip? I will not revert again now, but this is disruptive and not improving the article. Anyways, Tom 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Criminals" and BLP violations

We seem to have a huge number of very detailed articles on alleged criminals, and in particular organised crime. These typically have no inline citations and perhaps no sourcing other than a few external links. The links are often to fairly unreliable sites. Technically, many of these can be, and have been, speedy deleted under G10 - as totally negative bios with no, or poor sourcing. Others need stubbing until properly referenced. However, we really need a squad of BLP savy people to work on these and either delete them, or (better) make them comply with the fully rigour of the BLP policy.

Let me give just some examples - these have a varying degree of problems:

• Sammy Gravano - extended biography containing dozens of uncited allegations
• Gennaro Langella - one external link (and one to a prison)
• Raymond Patriarca, Jr. - no references whatsoever (there's a further reading section, but whether it evidences what's in the text I have no idea)
• Salvatore Ricchiettore - zip sources (now deleted)
• Bernardo Provenzano - some parts well sourced, others not
• Richard Martino - external links (do they source the article? perhaps)
• Richard G. Gotti - zip sources (except a prison locator site)
• Richard V. Gotti - only a generic "further reading" section
• Peter Gotti - John A. Gotti - "external links" and "further reading" - sufficient?
• Tino Fiumara - further reading and links, but no sources
• Vincent Palermo - no sources.
• I've already had admins delete: Joseph Testa Michael Thevis and Tony Fiato

OK, you get the picture. Plenty more can be found by looking for living bios in places like List of mobsters by city, Category:Italian-American mobsters Category:Italian-American crime families. Help and comments needed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

John G. Roberts

• John G. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - introduction of defamatory content to BLP // Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• DegenFarang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - repeated pushing of highly biased material into lede; today pushed clearly defamatory claims from a blog into the lede. ongoing pattern of disruption for a month now. This is yet another report, previously reported for same vio Mar 16.// Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=prev&oldid=278881814

Lily Allen

Lily Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Subject spotted that Wikipedia article contains inaccurate (and libelous) information during interview with New York Times - This Wild Girl’s a Homebody Now - New York Times 4 February, 2008 and instead of removing them, Wikipedia editor/s make a feature of them.

Material added by editor User:Edkollin [15]. I removed them - [16]. Editor Edkollin replaces them [17].

I wonder if this requires oversight, although its out there in the New York Times - depends upon Wikipedias definition of morality I suppose. In the face of denials from Allen, this looks like a repeated libel to me. The rest of the article may need examining by BLP experts in the light of this. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Daytona2's comments. The user in question is inserting and reinserting all sorts of BLP-violating and clearly troublesome material into the article. Some of it is adequately sourced. Some not. But an encyclopedic article is not just a big collection of press clips. Especially since many of them are trivial or tangents. As well as embarassing or unflattering. Probably the only encyclopedia article that someone is determined to keep a discussion of a snowball fight in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the entirety of the "personal life" section (which was really not much more than a list of negative events or descriptions). Sometimes its best to start with a clean slate; in this case I think some editors have had the wrong approach. Verifiability is the minimum standard for inclusion, but not the only standard. Information can and should be excluded if it isn't pertinent to an encyclopedic biography, and it seems to me that a laundry list of every negative tabloid coverage ever falls within "not pertinent." Avruch ^T 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I thank you as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A reply I've made to the conversation on the Lily Allen talkpage which I think it's worth repeating here for further action from people with the power to do so - Since Edkollin is now editing elsewhere and has apparently refused to recognise or correct the libel, I'll explain why I removed it. The reference he used to support the statement was a transcript of an Australian local radio show where a mother with a different christian name to Allen's mother was talking about her daughter, Lily's, disease. A bad example of careless news release consolidation into Wikipedia, at odds with WP:BLP. As for the word libel, it's an accurate description for what has occurred and the worst example of which, due to it's apparent plausibility, I've seen in years of using Wikipedia.

The priorities, as I see them are - firstly to put right the damage, and once accomplished, to continue editing. Firstly, as a matter of ethics, I think that the libellous material, wherever it has been repeated (article, talk page, BLP noticeboard etc), should be subject to WP:oversight. Secondly Edkollins edits need to be examined and monitored for further instances and if that can't effectively be done his continued participation in the Wikipedia project should be examined. Thirdly, the general business of improving the article can continue. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

• Pauline Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some Australian media outlets recently published nude or scantily clad images of a young woman, claiming that they were of Pauline Hanson, who is currently standing as a candidate in the Queensland State election in three days time. Links to the photographs were quickly added to the article by an editor who continues to edit-war and defend their inclusion, even after Ms Hanson denied that the photographs were of her, her sister and ex-husband failed to see a resemblance, and facial-recognition experts stated that the images were not of Ms Hanson. The photographer cannot clearly remember details of the "girlfriend" and states that he acted solely to make money from Ms Hanson's popularity. Ms Hanson is now suing the media outlets. An opinion piece on the issue by Jack Waterford of The Canberra Times warns against publishing material about a public figure unrelated to his or her public life, and notes that she will likely collect damages. His conclusion is worth quoting:

Tabloid television, celebrity journalism and the hypocritical and shameless exposure journalism exemplified by the Hanson episode sit uneasily alongside claims of acting in, or pursuing the public interest.

I think that including links in our article to nude photographs of someone other than the article's subject is a matter of WP:BLP concern, especially when those links state clearly but erroneously that they are of our subject. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The media outlet involved has issued a full apology to Ms Hanson, yet an editor has repeatedly inserted links to these photographs. --Pete (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The reinstated version does not feature links to the pictures. One referenced article shows one pic, cropped to show face only, and quotes an expert saying that the pic is not of Hanson. Format (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Providing links to articles that link to the original incorrect news stories, complete with photographs, is almost as bad. She is suing the news outlets over the original stories right now, despite more recent public apologies and statements admitting error. And she will win. I think that this is reason enough to be very circumspect in our handling. Also, see my comments on the article talk page re WP:WEIGHT. --Pete (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sally Ramage

Sally Ramage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This person is probably notable, but the way the article is currently written, it sounds more like a (very) detailed CV or advert. Phrases like "Ms. Ramage has dedicated her life to purse Justice and has done volunteer work" and "Sadly, her arthritis resulted in necrosis of her femur, but fortunately, she pursued her career unfazed by her disability", and a very long list of publications, do little to make this sound like anything other than self-agrandising garbage which is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Astronaut (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could AFD it to prove (or disprove) notability, plus get eyes on it for improvement. Rd232 ^talk 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a horrible mess[18] and I spent some time formatting it just to see what was there prior to attempting to get it into some sort of shape. The author then started editing so I stopped. Clearly, Ramage is a prolific writer of papers! She seems to be a prominent lawyer in the UK but I did have some trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources to attest to her notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is pretty dire - once you strip out the misleading references (that link to generic papers that don't mention the subject of the article) and the vanity publishing, you are left with a lot.--Cameron Scott (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaspare Mutolo

Gaspare Mutolo - There are links to a site that requires payment, I tried to remove them, Mafia Expert (talk · contribs) keeps addeing them// Evenmoremotor (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

WP:LINKSTOAVOID concerns External Links not references. You should not be removing references quoting this guideline. It is acceptable to use a newspaper website that requires subscription as a reference. Not everyone will be able to view the content, but not everyone owns every book that is referenced either. Mfield (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

John Beer

Do the remarks by Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about Professor John Beer of the University of Cambridge on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#To_reviewers:_.22Thanks.2C_but_no_thanks.22 beginning with "LMAO ..." (see here) constitute a WP:BLP violation? I am under the impression that personal attacks against living persons even on talk space constitute such violations; I would appreciate a clarification. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is covered by "fair comment"--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hasselbeck

An IP editor is continuing to revert to versions of the article that contain unsourced defamatory descriptions "The following week he had the ignominy of recording the lowest possible single-game passer rating", "Hasselbeck has a mediocre 63.7 career passer " etc. I request either semi protection of the article or blockage of the IP. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring (you're clear, because WP:BLP enforcement is WP:3RR-exempt). If the problem continues after the block or if more IPs join in, I'll semi-protect it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has come up at RPP, but as it has been dealt with here, there's no need to protect it. --GedUK  21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Per the discussion in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Atzmon.27s_continued_controversial_writings

• User:Drsmoo opines that it is “plainly clear that Atzmon is an anti-semite more than he is an anti-zionist” and tries to prove that through selective editing of this recent Interview.
• This diff (see last paragraphs) and (reproduced on talk page), shows my more NPOV summary of what Atzmon says using most of DRsmoo's original quotes, which Drsmoo replaces with a far more inaccurate and POV-pushing summary.
• DrSmoo engages in personal attacks in talk, including by searching around the internet to find “dirt” on me. I think his edits and behavior are serious violations of BLP.
• I hope someone will either a) opine on talk page, including about the alternative edits; b) make your own NPOV summary of what Atzmon says. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: someone suggested that since there is so much in the interview that can be interpreted in a number of POV ways, only third party comments on this interview be used. The other idea is to take out any reference to the interview until a compromise is reached in talk. I'd appreciate if others would respond so I don't have to take this to Israel-Palestine arbitration complaint. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: quotations and implicit statements:

• It is unacceptable to take an interview with a subject and make interpretations of quotations in order to deduce that a person is anti-semitic; to do so is original research. A quotation from the subject can only be used to make such deductions if it is an unambiguous self-description i.e. the subject can quoted as saying, "I am anti-semitic" or "I hate Jews" or something similarly blatant.
• Quotations, especially by the subject, should generally (with some exceptions) not be included in articles. It is trivial to cherry-pick quotes to imply that a subject holds opinions which he does not. Use of quotations by editors to "prove" a conjecture or advance a thesis is, again, original research.
• If one wishes to include a statement that a person is anti-semitic then one needs either multiple independent third-party reliable sources that unambiguously say that or an unambiguous statement from the subject to that effect. Using quotations from the subject or others to lead the reader to a conclusion because sources do not exist that would permit a simple statement of the conclusion is also unacceptable; encyclopaedia articles should state things, not imply them.

Re: behaviour

• Carolmooredc, can you please provide me a link/diff or fuller explanation of, "searching around the internet to find “dirt” on me" as it's unclear what you mean.

CIreland (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fixing up the article; there are plenty of secondary sources that make the same point without quote-mining. THF (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First, it should be noted Atzmon IS litigious and is currently in some sort of litigation against at least one person in article who labeled him an antisemite; guess I should remind talk page about that again.

Atzmon being ex-Israeli and an artist/novelist/musician does spout off his theories in controversial ways which tick off partisan people, but usually the full context makes his larger points clear as being less or far less offensive sounding. The basic problem is editors cherry picking his statements out of context and then my or others providing the larger context - so article keeps getting longer. (Note that one editor who defends the article getting longer with more accusations - so “people can make their own judgement” - himself is twice quoted criticizing Atzmon in the article.)

I complained about this in one new paragraph about a new long complicated interview - currently as edited at bottom right of this diff. As other editors have said, Atzmon makes so many points in interview it's easy to do a POV/WP:OR rendition and may be it should just be left out and be only an external link...unless truly neutral person come up with good NPOV summary.

Now since I posted this THF has taken all of the partisan accusations based on out of context statements and stuck them in the lead "proving" Atzmon is an “antisemite” (and put them in the bio box too). (He also shares his personal opinion he is one using some alleged statement he himself presents out of context.) I believe such partisan allegations have to be carefully labeled and his response that the charge "Anti-Semite is an empty signifier" and quotes that he is an artist drawing all this out of himself also has to be put in the lead.

Drsmoo to create this diff had to search out my web page and then had to dig deep to find one of its articles to find an illustration (totally relevant to article) to complain about - presenting only the illustration out of context, of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Jews control the world", "The Jews killed Jesus", "Israel is worse than Hitler" and questioning the Holocaust qualifies one as an anti-Semite, and Atzmon has said worse in his primary sources. I've added nothing to the article that isn't documented and neutral, and I've deleted the primary-source material from the article -- except for the primary sources CMDC has added defending Atzmon. There is no BLP problem. If Atzmon wants to sue me, it's not that hard to find me. THF (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF's out of context quotes above, not to mention, new lead entries don't show which articles make which allegations and they only should refer to allegations made below in the article which are then presented in total context with any replies from Atzmon included. Without doing so his changes are total WP:Coatrack and using wikipedia for character assassination. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Atzmon is most notable for his anti-Semitism, which has been noted by his fellow anti-Zionists, by jazz magazines, and by newspapers across the world. I welcome review of the article. CMDC complains that the quotes are "out of context," but that is her original research; all of the quotes come from reliable secondary sources that singled out the statements in reporting about Atzmon. I've repeatedly asked her to provide me with secondary sources to defend Atzmon, and she has responded that there is a Jewish conspiracy that has prevented such sources from existing, and instead pointed me to a cherry-picked WP:PRIMARY quote of Atzmon defending himself by saying he is not an anti-Semite because there is no such thing as antisemitism. I've added that to the LEAD for lack of anything better. THF (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First User:THF has been busy editing all day so I'm going to wait til he's done before start to fix the problems. And there will be 3rr problems if I'm not careful. So it might take a while to address his various edits - not to mention his personal opinions.

Second I never said anything about "Jewish conspiracy" in this diff and so I think he should remove that WP:attack. But I should not have responded to his provocation. Mea culpa.

Third and importantly User:THF has twice removed BLP dispute tag today [19] [20] despite my clear comments that his edits are against BLP - plus longstanding problem of almost daily vandalism of page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The BLPdispute tag applies only if there are "poorly referenced controversial claims." The article has no poorly referenced controversial claims, and CMDC has not identified any: everything specific she has complained about has been rectified, with the exception of her desire to add her own OR. I have not expressed any personal opinions that have not been shared by reliable sources. The article complies with BLP, and, if anything, is tilted in favor of Atzmon, since I have not expanded the anti-Semitism section with the additional sources I have found, nor have I removed the unreliable sources in favor of Atzmon and non-notable WP:PUFFing of Atzmon's music. THF (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF hasn't given other editors a chance to even look at all his new sources, not to mention issues of neutrality (ie NOT WP:coatrack character assassination) and encylopedic-ism which also are in the tag. Plus there is ongoing dipute on the New Zealand interview.

Per WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Frankly, WP:THF's edits today are quite sensationalistic and his personal comments that it is "quite clear that this fellow is an anti-Semite, and that should not be sanitized from the article" show that bias.

One reason we needed Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles was the lose labeling of biography subjects as antisemites based on partisan attacks in WP:RS for which there often were few defenses except the person themself--not to mention intimidation through accusations of antisemitism against editors who would try to make a balanced article, including full context for quotes by biography subjects.

Tag wise, most importantly the article is constantly vandalized with comments about Atzmon and/or one of the editors so readers dropping by need some alert that what they read may not be kosher and other editors should know to speedily delete them.

My question to someone other than THF: Doesn't neutrality mean all controversial statements quoted from subject of biography have to at least be given context within article for BLP reasons, not to mention responses to any such criticisms? If not enough people opine on talk or here, can one bring to Neutrality noticeboard etc? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue in Wikipedia is verifiability. Everything in the Atzmon article is verifiable, and sourced to reliable secondary sources. There has not been quote cherry-picking: all primary sources of negative Atzmon quotes have been deleted, so there is no claim that editors have taken anything out of context. JazzTimes is not a "partisan source," but identifies Atzmon as an anti-Jewish bigot. Yet the article at no time actually calls Atzmon an antisemite; it merely notes (correctly) that he has been often accused of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, and prints his rebuttal that he is not an antisemite because there is no such thing as antisemitism. CMDC is guilty of failing to assume good faith in my accurate sourcing, but there is no BLP problem with the article, and no basis for the offensive and inaccurate tag she has repeatedly added without identifying any problems, in violation of WP:TAGGING. THF (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is as important as WP:V - esp in BLP. As someone else just noted on the talk page, this has become an attack article, in large part because of today's edits to the lead. And very POV.

Therefore I think most of the NEW accusations should be moved to the text where they can be properly given context and any response from Atzmon included.

This article has suffered from constant misuse of sources, as do most BLP's I've edited on critics of Israel, so checking out every source is necessary.

User:THF should not take source checking or opinions from other editors, or the fact that the article needs a BLP tag in general because of constant questionable edits, as a personal attack. I think THF needs to step back for a day or two to get some perspective. I've certainly had enough of just arguing on talk pages about it for today! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're looking at the article. There aren't any quotes in the lead. The lead complies with WP:LEAD, which requires mention of notable controversies, and since the antisemitism controversy is the most notable thing about Atzmon, if anything the LEAD gives it short shrift. Yes, the article used to have bad sources. That's why I fixed it. Tags are there to describe current problems with the article. If you think the article violates NPOV, take it to the NPOV board. There is no BLP problem: everything is reliably sourced. You don't add the tag unless you have a basis to think that the sources are unreliable, and that is offensive to say an experienced editor who regularly patrols the BLPN board presumptively doesn't know how to reliably source a BLP. THF (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

<backdent
Hey, you changed the article while I was writing my comment above! :-) Anyway, big problem remaining in lead as I mention in talk page: And per the "Holocaust denier" in the lead section, since when does a decent encyclopedia use vague throw away accusation from secondary sources (including Mary Rizzo's defense of Atzmon!) and delete the only source that actually halfway explains what the guy said, in a lousy german translation. A decent encyclopedia only mentions it if it can get a couple good and neutral WP:RS sources to explain what he said. If it did this with every accusation, we wouldn't need Atzmon at all. Obviously the abundance of attack pieces are used as an excuse to create an attack article with no real information on what grounds the attacks are made. You make it necessary to create a whole section on this now which will show just how much "evidence" there is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you didn't want the German translation. I'm happy to have it back if you want to restore it, since it is a very plain statement of Atzmon's antisemitism and Holocaust denial to a neutral observer. THF (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Properly translated the German thing illustrates nothing of the sort. See relevant section of the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed since writing that you got in a few more edits I missed in last hour, so frankly I don't know what all the sources are you've come up with. I'll have to wait til you are done before commenting again. However, I suspect the "Holocaust denier" accusations have far to thin a thread of evidence to belong in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited for massive BLP concerns over cherrypicking of quotes in lead para. Further editing/discussion will no doubt follow, but it would be extremely advisable not to put more detail in the lead, where any NPOV imbalance (etc) is most problematic. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Today has been an exercise in how NOT to edit a BLP! Glad I was only observing and complaining or I'd be really mad. ;-) I'll have to read WP:BLP again to figure out what criticisms of old ones were valid and which were just an excuse to delete NPOV edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean collectively, me, or someone else? Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Thanks for taking on job of starting to correct many of the problems created yesterday. Having worked so hard with other editors to get the article in decent shape for almost a year, I now feel like I have to start all over and now look in depth at every WP:RS to find perfect WIki-compliant material to use, which makes me want to throw up my hands in frustration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any editor who claims that Atzmon is "most notable for his antisemitism" is unfit to be editing this article. Even if it were true (and Atzmon is not even a politician, for goodness sake), such a view is inherently POV and makes these time-wasting BLP arguments inevitable. 86.155.143.94 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your imminently sensible comment! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon (again)

Uninvolved neutral editors, and admin attention for possible page protection due to edit warring, required. Ongoing BLP problems as some editors want to remove a balanced work-in-progress description of the subject's complex and controversial anti-Zionism with simple claims of antisemitism. Until recently the article was a borderline attack page; this has been addressed in response to the previous posting on this noticeboard, much to the displeasure of editors and IPs who see the subject as a bigot and any failure to present this position as the unvarnished truth (eg by quoting the subject's views in their full context) is "white-washing". Rd232 ^talk 04:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If what you are saying is that you want your own edits protected, that is problematic. I understand that every editor assumes that his/her edits are NPOV, but since this article involves many editors with many very different assumptions about NPOV, it might be better for all editors (including you) to discuss changes on the talk before making the changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you exceeded 3RR on the grounds of BLP violation. That violation is not at all clear, and additions that you made, and reverted to multiple times, does little if anything to improve NPOV [21]. I request that you not edit war under a subterfuge of BLP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I said I was ignoring 3RR; at the time you wrote the above there were only 3 reverts. Now it's 4, per BLP exemption for removing damaging material. And I see no reason why as part of that rv I should take time to remove material which is perfectly good and is necessary to maintain NPOV in BLP (avoid simplistically showing subject as anti-semitic). Now I'm going to ask for page protection since this is clearly necessary at this point, followed by an RFC on the two versions (since despite increasingly widespread pleas across WP for more input, there hasn't been any). Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are requesting that your own edits be protected via page protection. How more POV can editing be than that? As for BLP violations, where are they? If you show me I will delete the violations myself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not request that my own edits be protected, I requested that the page be protected (WP:RFPP). As to BLP violations, cf response on my talk page and on Talk:Gilad Atzmon (if it isn't blindingly obvious from the article edit history). Rd232 ^talk 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The most problematic content I see was added since my previous edit, above. I have now made changes those. If you think further changes are necessary, then re-edit. As it is of now, you have brought, what is nothing more than an editing dispute, to four or five different boards. But, it seems to me that the situation with the article is not very bad. The result may not be just what you want, but all the problems are editing problems that can get worked out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this dispute nowhere, though I did issue an RFC and a request for page protection. (Though the latter seems to have been eaten by the wikimonster.) As I noted on Talk:Gilad Atzmon, User:THF has shopped the issue around (to little effect - nobody else seems to want to touch the dispute...). (Not counting my post here because I was mostly trying to "bump" the issue down the page.) Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article about Rhodri Philipps

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

This text is substandard and seems to be written by Ph. or his lawyers. I call for intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.25.77 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I stubbed it, all of the sources seem to primary and the text seem to the taken of invovled parties about what those primary documents mean. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article about Patti Austin

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

This text fails to have even the minimum of citations and includes direct quotes without providing exact sources. As the material does not appear to be defamatory, I did not delete it, but it definitely needs to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards. Please note that it currently is listed as a stub but it has far more information on it than is common for stubs.Zagrossadjadi (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, it needs some cleaning. Feel free to do it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Wherrett deceased?

The anon IP 168.98.67.18 (talk · contribs) edited the Peter Wherrett article several times to claim Mr. Wherrett is deceased. I semi-protected the article for 3 days, and placed a level 4 BLP warning on the IP's talk page. However, the user states that he received an email from Mr. Wherrett's family members stating Wherrett has recently died. It has not yet been updated on the Sydney Morning Herald website or Google News. The day is waning in my time zone as it is waxing in Australia. If this is turns out to be true, more attention may be necessary on the article. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am personally acquainted with the Peter and I do know what it going on. I believe that in the circumstances, we must insist on verifiability very strictly. I'm also quite concerned at the naming of family and friends on the talk page. I've removed the names but believe deletion and possibly oversight may be appropriate for reasons that I can't state here. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Death confirmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have added the details and unprotected the page. Please feel free to fix any errors that may have been introduced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edison Chen's prior lives? (part 2)

OK, I'll do my part to try to keep this going forward, but I think we're getting into wikt:TLDR territory here and discouraging other editors or admins from getting into this. That's unfortunate, because I opened this discussion here, not for a change of venue, but to get other editors with experience in WP:BLP to comment, and I think we've garnered only Hipocrite.

Benjwong, I've asked, "Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article?" You have not answered that. You've said only that SCMP is a reliable source, completely missing a very important part of the issue: for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article?

It does not matter if SCMP is a reliable source for some matters if it is not a reliable source for accounts of past lives of real people. As I've pointed out, there are some very fine newspapers that carry astrology columns. I have no difficulty with citing the New York Times for an election result, but it is not a reliable source for the reporting of supernatural phenomena, such as astrology or reincarnation. Whether one believes in astrology or reincarnation is not the point; the point is that a newspaper is not a reliable sources for either insofar as they assert that the supernatural phenonemon is real. I suspect there are no such sources for that proposition in the context of an encylopedia, other than those encyclopedias such as the Catholic Encyclopedia that take the existence of the supernatural as a given.

So: "Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article?"

I take it that, since you chose to respond only about the SCMP, that you concede that the FSM is not a reliable source for the assertion; is that correct?

I have no problem with citing a feng shui expert in an article about feng shui describing the tenets of feng shui. Similarly, I have no problem with an astrologer being quoted in an article about astrology, explaining how one casts a horoscope. I have no problem with a biblical scholar being quoted in an article explaining whether there is or is not a historical basis for a particular story described in the bible. I have a problems with any of those being used in an article to assert as fact something in the feng shui analysis, horoscope, or bible, without some other reasonable support. And I have a lot of problems with it when the article in question is a biography of a real, living person, and the statement in question is making a factual assertion about the subject of the biography.

You've said, "Last I checked very anonymous non-notable journalists are able to claim Tibetans reincarnate on newspapers. These sources are allowed into wiki." Without any specificity about what you're claiming, I can't specifically address that, but my correspondingly unspecific response to that is, if such articles exist, 1) if the articles in questions are not BLP articles, while such use reflects poorly on Wikipedia, it just makes them poor articles, and does not rise to a BLP violation as we have here; and 2) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument adding crap to other articles.

Finally, there is a substantial difference between the two statements:

"A fengshui expert somewhere said Chen's past life is XYZ".

"A car expert somewhere said Chen's last car was XYZ".

A claim that someone owned a car is not an extraordinary claim. A claim that someone has been reincarnated is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary support.

Again, I would like to call on other editors and admins with substantial BLP experience to weigh in on this subject. I'm frankly surprised we're continuing to have this discussion. TJRC (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also baffled this has gone on so long - even if the paper is reliable source - "so what?", it's completely undue and does not belong in a BLP article.--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when did western media become an expert for Tibetan reincarnations? You guys have no problem accepting that one. When TJRC called the Three-life-book a tabloid horoscope, it should have have stopped right there. SCMP and FSM reporting Edison Chen was reincarnated is NO DIFFERENT than SCMP reporting Dalai Lama was reincarnated. You guys need to look at your violation of wikipedia is not an anarchy. Benjwong (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except the Dalai Lama shares those reincarnation claims himself and they're available across multiple reliable sources. Chen's reincarnation beliefs are publically unknown. Exceptional claims need to be made by said individual, not a third-party for inclusion on wiki. Again, see my earlier comments on that particular policy above.

The point of protecting the article was to allow cooler heads to reach consensus over a content dispute with adherence to WP:BLP. I'm disappointed that the end of the protection period just re-started this edit/revert war. --Madchester (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarity. I did not "call[] the Three-life-book a tabloid horoscope." TJRC (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See above. A comparison to newspaper horoscopes was brought up to downplay this discussion. Benjwong (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see above, and see that I did not say what you're claiming I said. TJRC (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong, I do not understand your comment "Since when did western media become an expert for Tibetan reincarnations?" I don't see anyone making that assertion, and I don't see how that relates to this issue. No one is citng western media for the alleged reincarnations at issue here. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely relates. Tibetans say they reincarnate. That was allowed because Dalai Lama have said it. Edison Chen never said it. But neither did Hernando cortez. Look at Conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire#Cortés as Quetzalcoatl. What source listed is reliable enough to show Cortez really said he believes it? He just said in a letter to king Charles, that is what the aztecs think of him. AFAIK he brushed it off as nonsense, and it still got into wiki. Benjwong (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's dead and not covered by the scope of BLP. Has anyone else supported this frankly insane line of argument? Because I don't see it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Cortez was just an example of what is allowed to fit on wiki. Is entirely up to the users to fit it to a particular project. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Benjwong, I don't see anyone making that assertion. No one is citng western media for the alleged reincarnations at issue here. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument here. Please stop justifying addition of this material using that argument. It's just not going to fly. If you think there's a problem in the Conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire, the appropriate response is to fix it, not to replicate the problem into other articles. TJRC (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the question, "Is it your position that this FSM or the SCMP...article". Yes it is. Past Life/Astrology as you call it is a science in both Chinese History and Culture. A vast majority of people still believe it (In China), and both the person who said it and the paper who published the article are well known. The fact that you compared the whole thing to tabloid horoscopes is just crude. "there are some very fine newspapers that carry astrology columns.". I will add more later but I need to rush to uni =) Dengero (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When cultural material (reincarnation) is being called a violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this pretty much sums up the stance. The material is being blocked, and there is really not much more I can do about it to bypass that opinion. I think I am going to quit this one before I waste anymore time. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also whatever the final concensus is, someone should post a result on the original talkpage to close this out. Benjwong (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess this can be closed. There is no point wasting all of our time on a paragraph. Dengero (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor children; personal names in articles related to multiple births

• Suleman octuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chukwu octuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• McCaughey septuplets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A question was raised specifically on the Suleman octuplets and the use of their names in the Suleman octuplets article at the administrator's noticeboard. The question relates to whether usage of the names of minor children in such circumstances violates their privacy per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names. I don't have a stance on this issue at this point beyond the opinion that any decision rendered here would relate to several articles rather than simply the one. I'm opening this discussion in courtesy to the contributor who voiced his concerns at AN and will publicize it at the relevant article talk pages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the Suleman children WP:BLP states under Privacy of names that "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it." For the Suleman children it's been published in thousands of news articles, tv shows, magazines, etc... It's been clearly widely disseminated, and there was no attempt to intentionally conceal them the family themselves gave the information out. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also theres more then just those pages that would be included by this conversation: Dionne quintuplets, Kienast quintuplets, Rosenkowitz sextuplets, Walton sextuplets, Dilley sextuplets, Hanselman sextuplets, Brino quadruplets. Also List of multiple births and virtually everything linked off of it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are no longer minors, though some of them certainly should be (included, not minors :)). Arguably, whatever criteria may determine this, the Brino quadruplets may be somewhat different, since they have IMDB profiles. I don't know if the role they played is notable, since I've never seen 7th Heaven. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Should the policy mater after they get older? They became notable as infants, shouldn't as they get older the policy protect them under the same umbrella unless they become notable again for something in their adult life? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Globally speaking, policies regarding minors and adults can be different on Wikipedia. We discourage minors from posting information about themselves here, but once they're no longer minors they can post whatever they want. But beyond noting that, I don't know what the editor at AN had in mind, so I'll leave that question for him to answer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There was this discussion about the issue on the BLP talk page, and the octuplet's talk page that you put the notice about this on. I feel unless the current wording of WP:BLP is changed to add a exception to the rule for minors that listing the children's names doesn't violate BLP, it's clearly public information that the family themselves released and is widely disseminated. Is this a discussion about changing/amendingWP:BLP? If not I don't see what the point of the discussion is? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to go with the widely disseminated statement. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the key policy is right there are the top of WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." So any information we include about any living person should only be there if it has to be there: otherwise, we are not writing "conservatively". Most of these articles about multiple births are no worse at all without the names of the children in there, so the names of the children should be removed. Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You lean more to the outright deletion of content, as opposed to working within the guidelines of policy though. The policy is pretty clear, I'm just asking are we going to put a minor clause that exempts them from what wouldn't be an issue with an adult. There is none right now that I'm aware of. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the discussion regarding the octuplets names, should not the names of the older minor siblings be removed? They are notable by association only.  florrie  00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but they're also widely disseminated. Their names is less relevant to the article, but maybe relevant to the mother's article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Widely disseminated" is not a sufficient criterion for BLP information, and never has been ever since we've had the policy. The information has to be encyclopedic as well. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How is not the names of the people the article about not encyclopedic, and I quote from WP:BLP "When the name of a private individual has not been 'widely disseminated..." as justification for use of those names. Like I said, unless modification of the policy is to be made in regards to minors, then what is the point of this discussion? Noone can argue that their names are not widely published with hundreds (likely thousands) of reliable secondary sources (Just talking about the Suleman children, the other pages I have no clue about the media coverage on them) ... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For extensively publicized material the only justification for hiding the names is if the names are subsequently or at the time actually concealed or possibly at least attempted to be concealed, as can sometimes happen in situations of this sort. If there is not only no effort being made to hide the names, but rather what seems to be an immense effort to publicize it, and if other responsible sources use the names, and the material is fundamentally of encyclopedic interest, there is no purpose in concealing it. I have myself removed from WP material of this sort for children when there does not seem to be other than tabloid interest, or the material is not widely known or where some real harm could be done to the child by the information: I do not think any of these is the case here. DGG (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I see a couple issues here. One is that listing the names really seems to offer nothing in the way of content, similar to listing all the vice presidents of a company, who cares if child #3 is named Sally Loo-hoo? What is encyclopedic is the number of children and that some are fraternal twins, etc. As the children become individually notable they certainly could be re-added. The other sticking point to me is Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names which instructs, right after stating the names need to be widely disseminated to be considered at all,

When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

I don't think there is any non-news sources here in the spirit that this calls for but each case can be looked at individually.

Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

To me this suggests we remove the names until more compelling reason is given to insert them. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific experiment so I doubt there will be journal papers written. Books from experts maybe could be written in the future, which would undoubtably include the names of the octuplets. The thing is, I don't see how listing the names of the children (a) violates a policy we currently have and (b) does any harm to them. It's just a name after all. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there something going to come of this, or can we continue editing the pages with the assumption that the children's names are ok as per the current wording of WP:BLP? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, you have no consensus for including the names. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff:

"In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."

As many editors have suggested that these names be removed as adding nothing to the article and violating current BLP policy, they should be removed forthwith. We err on the side of caution with BLP matters, which is exactly the point of the cited ArbCom case. Let's not have to waste ArbCom's time with this one, when it's guidance is already crystal clear. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Many editors" is how many, you and Banjoi? That's all that's here expressing concern. How is not the names of the people the article about not adding something to it, that doesn't make sense. Exactly where exactly does it say in WP:BLP that the names of minor children shouldn't be published on Wikipedia articles, even if they meet all the criteria that would qualify an adult person's name to be published? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy clearly states that if they're "widely disseminated" that's valid reason for inclusion, plus it's common practice to include the names of the children in these high-order birth articles. There is no "minor clause" in WP:BLP and the assumption of "do no harm" I don't feel is valid since this information is already available in hundreds to thousands of other highly visible sources. What protection do we afford them by not listing it here when it's clearly a matter of public record now? So the question is really does this (a) violate the current policy, if so exactly where, or (b) are we going to amend policy so to disallow this, if so then start that discussion. If we're not going to do B and A isn't met, then what's the point in continuing the discussion? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You again are missing the rest of that policy which I posted above. These children are not notable individually, are BLP minors and their names add nothing to the article and removing the names would not compromise our readers' understanding of the subject. Similarly we regularly remove the names of celebrities children in the spirit of do no harm. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that "do no harm" should apply to names of minors when they pass the criteria needed to list an adult's name, definitely when the article is about them. You would have a valid point of the family expressed the desire to not disclose their names, but they are the ones that made them public. I await an admin to weigh in with a more official statement on this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The names add nothing to the article? Gee, I wonder why they put them in the two-sentence news articles. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because news media is a business and any content they can use to reach their customers they generally will. Wikipedia is not under those same goals. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it makes no difference to the article if the kids are named John, Jane and Jim; or Raeky, Physchim62 and Benjiboi. Nor does it make any difference to the encyclopedic article whether the names are widely disseminated or not. The idea that we should include evertything we can is contrary to the most basic principles of Wikipedia, and special rules have been made for biographies of living people because they need to be stronger, not weaker. Physchim62 (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Based on the discussion above I'd like to see if there is now consensus.

In cases of living children, who are legal minorities, we should omit the names and err on the side of writing conservatively per WP:BLP. Even if news media have widely disseminated this information - like as one of many children in a multiple birth or as the child of a famous person - Wikipedia can convey the same information, that they exist, without publishing their names. Unless a compelling case is made that including these names adds significant value to our readers' understanding or the omission would compromise the article we should leave the information out and strive to maintain the subject's privacy.

• Support as nom. "Widely disseminated" still does not address that this information simply isn't needed, ergo non-encyclopedic. The notable bit remains that these children exist, their mentions almost always center on the parent, or as a group per WP:NOTINHERITED. If and when they become individually notable then the names, in turn of such, can be re-added. -- Banjeboi 07:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly disagree with the assertion that the names of the octuplets doesn't add value to the article. If the information is widely disseminated and available in numerous reliable secondary sources, and the family themselves has released the names to the media so there is no obvious attempt to withhold/conceal them, then I see no BLP/privacy issues. If those conditions are met, I see no reason not to include it to improve the article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Publishing someone's name does not lead to privacy concerns in adults or minors when they're name is already widely published. Unless there have been specific attempts to keep their name out of the media (for example in legal cases) or unless publishing their name could lead to threats on their health or life because of their actions, there is no harm to avoid.(Once the kids go to school publishing their school's name could lead to safety issues -- that is a privacy issue to be concerned about) -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although I think it's redundant to current BLP policy and shouldn't be restricted simply to minors: the same argument would apply to any person who is only notable because of a family connection to an encyclopedic subject. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nom and as per -- Banjeboi. There is no individual notability for the children until they do something newsworthy themselves. Their privacy (minors) should be paramount. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per raeky and Mgm. This proposal is talking about suppressing information that is widely publicly available; all it does is diminish the usefulness of Wikipedia without protecting anybody.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as being in line with prior policies. Being born to a famous person is intrinsically a "single event", protection of minors is provided for in WP policies, and the combination of the two is all we are reasserting as being a valid reason to keep a name out of WP. Tabloids print a lot of material which is then "widely available" - that is not a reason for putting it into WP. Collect (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As well as the other points brought up above, this is far too vaguely written. As it is, it looks like it would apply even in cases when the minors in question are genuinely notable in their own rights, preventing us from writing articles about notable people. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misreading -- it appears to apply to children whose notability is not otherwise apparent, whose prime notability is being a child of a famous person, or possibly even less directly related to the main article. Collect (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this restriction on whom it applies to? All I see is "In cases of living children, who are legal minorities", which could easily be read as applying to subjects of articles. The children-of-celebrities part is in the examples and does not appear to be intended as a restriction. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the proposal would prevent us from having an article on Connie Talbot, for example: it would merely mean that we remove the first names of her siblings. Personally, I would remove the first names of her parents as well, as adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose If the names of the children are public knowledge, meaning published in the news media on at least a regional if not national level, there is no compelling reason to keep their names out of the Wikipedia article since the names are already easily accessible to the public. No reason to censor Wikipedia, in fact we are not censored, so we should NOT ban the use of the names in articles. Failing to publish the names in Wikipedia in no way "protects" these minors when the information is freely available elsewhere. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • People's home phone numbers and addresses are also publicly available, why aren't you complaining that we're censoring that as well? Mr.Z-man 22:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the names can be found in a Google search, then we may as well have them. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - BLP should always err on the side of caution. There's plenty of stuff that can be found from a Google search that we shouldn't include in articles. The "OMG censorship!!!" argument when dealing with BLPs makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Even if there is no compelling reason to remove the names now, there is no compelling reason to keep them either. In my opinion, they add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article.--Dycedarg ж 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for substantially the same reasons put forward by raeky and Mgm. The purposes of Wikipedia are not advanced by suppressing mention of information in the interest of providing the illusion of keeping publicly known facts private. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per others above. --Kbdank71 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly because the proposal is overly vague. As written, this would effectively set the stage for the removal of the names of all minors in articles where they are not the primary subject. The concerns about the privacy of the minor has not been established, as the information must be verifiable—in most cases this will be through the use of media news sources. This does not mean that the names should automatically be added to the articles, just that they should not be summarily excluded; editorial decisions should be made on the relevant talk pages. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There are times when they should be removed, and the three articles being discussed are not among them. Nor is the other example in the proposal sensible--are we really going to omit the names of the children of major movie stars ? DGG (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason that they should be included? Unless the children themselves have done anything remotely newsworthy other than being born/adopted by someone famous, I don't see what it adds. Why should we deny them any privacy just because their parents are famous? Mr.Z-man 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The key issue is, is the minor notable on their own, in which case they should be named, such as Caroline Kennedy (when she was a minor) or Chelsea Clinton, or the current White House kids. Leaving out their name would look foolish. But naming Britney Spears' kids or Brad Pitt's serves no purpose. And the octuplets? Please. Being the child of a celebrity is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse. It would be good to add, though, "In cases of living children, who are legal minorities, and not notable themself", just to be specific about the scope. Also, in the last sentence, change the word "subject's" to "child's", as the "subject" may or may not be the children: strive to maintain the child's privacy. Also, it really is not necessary to explicitly add "multiple birth" as an example: "like as one of many children in a multiple birth or as the child of a famous person" can be simplified to like the child of a famous person although you could generalize it to say like the child of a famous person, or an event involving minors. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to have a special rule for this that deviates from accepted practice in media in general. Solves nothing, just extra red tape. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We are not "the media in general" we are a non-profit project to create an encyclopedia. If the information has no place in an encyclopedia, it should go as per WP:NOT. Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, then you need to give a logical reason why it has no place in an encyclopedia. Lots of encyclopedias list names of children. There are reliable sources, it's interesting, and it certainly doesn't violate any policies in any way. And I never said we were the media in general. If you want to respond to my comment directly try responding to what I actually said instead of something else entirely. I know full well that we are here to create an encyclopedia, but making up some pointless new restriction doesn't help that one iota. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It has long been the practice of many editors to routinely delete the names of minor children of celebrities when they are added. This isn't People Magazine, or Family Ancestry. The article is about the parent, not the child. Say that they have three children, not that their names are Tom, Dick, and Harry. What their names are is completely irrelevant to the article. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• oppose Once it has been widely reported by the media this doesn't solve anything and amounts to censorship. If the primary justification of BLP is to do no harm then once such information is in public no harm is being done. I might be willing to support a proposal that focused on the names of minors where the names were obscure or difficult to find, but as written this proposal is a non-starter. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For one, most media outlets would give anything to have the pages views of Wikipedia, and their corresponding scores in search engine rankings. Secondly, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, and hence select our material. The top story in the Catalan press today concerns a non-agreement to finance a new railway station in Barcelona: if I condensed the thousands of words that were written yesterday evening by journalists for various newspapers of differing political persuasions, I might just get a single encyclopedic sentence out of it! The proposal, as written, is no more than what is already written in WP:BLP and WP:NOT: we are simply not here to be sensationalist journalists, nor does the project have the income necessary to pay the lawyers which yellow-press tabloids can afford from advertising revenue. Physchim62 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how what you said has anything to do with what I said? Because I'm not following. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • We're discussing the encyclopedic value of the longest living octuplet set in the world, second set born in the united states. This isn't a rehash of your attempt to delete the article about their mother. This is about the encyclopedic value of listing the names of the octuplets, for whom the whole article is about. To say it's not relevant is to say that listing main actors of a movie isn't relevant. They are relevant to the article. That argument I believe is moot. What where left is is it a violation of the children's privacy rights to list their names here. I contend it's not since they're already public knowledge, archived in thousands of papers globally and publicly and freely given by their guardian. There was and is no attempt to hide them. I don't see how, in this specific case, there is a violation of their rights to privacy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you are forgetting a crucial point - the main actors in a movie want to have their name in the paper so that they can get more work. In 18 years it is extremely unlikely that any of the octuplets will want to go to school and have someone say, "Harry, were you the Harry who was an octuplet that I read about in Wikipedia"? I'm using Harry because I don't know, nor want to know their actual names. Having their names in Wikipedia is a whole lot different than being able to do a search and find out their names. Most minors of celebrities would like nothing better than to vanish into anonymity. Other than the ones who become notable, and those we write articles about, like Judy Garland's daughter, Liza Minnelli, or Janet Leigh's daughter, Jamie Lee Curtis. In particular, it is especially not our job to help them become famous by listing their name as the son or daughter of so and so. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • We're not helping anyone become famous. We simply aren't censoring ourselves. To continute to focus on the octuplet example(why everyone cares about that one isn't clear to me), even if the name isn't mentioned in Wikipedia it will be in hundreds of other sources. Again, if the concern here is do-no-harm there's no realistic way inclusion of names creates any harm any more than poring a thimble of water into the ocean will make the tide higher. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • The effect is certainly minimal, but would it have helped Miley Cyrus become famous if her name had been in Wikipedia for 15 years? Certainly. It adds nothing to the article on her father what his daughter's name is (although in her case it wasn't Miley), until and only if she becomes notable. Isn't the entire Hannah Montana show about a child star who wants to be anonymous in her real life? I think you underestimate the thimble and the ocean. We are the ocean, the news media are the thimbles. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
            • So what? We don't care if Miley Cyrus would have been more or less likely to become famous. The concern per BLP is do-no-harm. There's no harm being done. Incidentally, if you really think that Wikipedia is the ocean and the media the thimbles then you massively overestimate the impact Wikipedia has. Sure, Wikipedia is generally in the top page of google hits for a subject and often the first google hit, but even if you remove Wikipedia, all the remaning hits will still generally have this sort of information. This is again quite clear in the octuplet case. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
              • The harm is the invasion of privacy of a minor. It has no encyclopedic value. There are a lot of things that WP is not, and this is one of them, and to take the high road and respect their privacy whether others do or not. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                • The goal is to do no harm. Explain how including the name does any harm. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • The harm is the loss of privacy. When you are a minor you deserve a great deal more privacy than when you reach the age of majority. That is why the names of minor offenders are rarely released to the public. Fast forward 18 years, and it really is not important what their names are, and no reason to add them even though they are no longer minors. It really is important to focus on what is encyclopedic and what is not. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if it is already widely disseminated there is no good reason to keep the names out. I would say that I'd want it widely disseminated, where widely is quite broad indeed. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific? Are you saying that if you were one of the octuplets you would want your name to be widely disseminated? For what purpose? And does that purpose support Wikipedia's purpose? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, apparently I can't write. What I mean is that if it is very widely distributed and very widely available information then I have no problem with it being here. If the widely part is debatable I'd prefer the information not be here. Is that more clear? Hobit (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Benjiboy, and, especially, Mr Z-man. Well said, Mr. Z. David in DC (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - first, this seems too much an attempt to make policy fit a particular case. Second, I think BLP policy needs reworking on a wider basis to deal with this type of issue: inclusion of material which meets standard WP policy/guidelines (in an article on a notable subject) but has little or no encyclopedic value. The practical meaning of WP:BLP's "presumption of privacy" needs clarifying in this direction, IMO. The days are long gone when WP could act as if what it does is merely a MMORPG: it's visibility is now such that the effects of this need to be taken into account in policy. WP:BLP has started this but is still, IMO, too weak. The whole thrust of the "anyone can edit" encyclopedia is that information can easily be included; guidelines as to exclusion of potentially problematic (in many possible ways) personal info need to be strong, and I don't think they're strong enough. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

What is the result of all this? Are we going to amend the BLP policy with special rules for minors? 8 Supports and 15 Oppose. Although voting isn't a way to decide on consensus, what is the outcome of all of this? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't to gauge changing policy as much as looking at is there clarity on how to interpret it. I think Rd232 has it right that BLP should be revisited to see how to handle information that may technically be allowed because it has been widely reported but still has no encyclopedic value. The straw poll can give a general consensus only as the proposal itself. It might have been worded better or the poll only getting attention from a limited group. Regardless there doesn't seem consensus either way with the likely result that all manner of trivial information will continue to be included, better or worse, until policy is strengthened to remove ambiguities. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

This article seems to be under attack by vandals.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned various editors involved re unconstructive edits. If it continues, semi-protection may help (most are IPs). NB This message would have been better elsewhere (eg WP:ANI in this instance or WP:AIV if sufficient warnings have already been given), this board is more for substantial content disputes than vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Paige

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

This article about a Playboy Playmate claims (without sourcing) that she has modelled under another name and includes a picture, where the subject is cited by yet a third name, that claims without reliable sourcing to be her. My inclination is to remove the picture and all the supposed alternate names. Would this be OK? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did it. Being bold. Now we discuss it on the talk page if you like. Thanks for the heads up. Is the picture not her?--Tom (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Everson

Michael Everson This autobiographical article is being edited by Michael Everson himself. It reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. Everson apparently reverts edits that he does not personally approve of. The page has been protected at this point. I attempted to remove unsourced, likely unverifiable material, such as the books he liked as a child, and Everson reverted it, adding a self-published source. I reminded Everson about the Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest and verifiability, but he seems to feel justified in adding unverifiable material back to his article. Logs of previous AfD showed mixed consensus on notability, but the present issue is article ownership and COI. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's me. Gigs deleted two entire paragraphs citing no specifics, just a sweeping "unverifiable". Not just a reference to Tolkien (which is in fact relevant to my career path), but the complete paragraph about life and education. Evidently I (or someone else?) should prove I was born in Pennsylvania and became an Irish citizen in 2000. He also deleted an entire paragraph containing the list of scripts which arguably is the reason the article is there at all. It all looked like the usual vandalism which the article receives. Gigs has reminded me about what he thinks Wikipedia policies (guidelines, not rules) are, mostly by acting like a Wikinanny and treating me like an idiot. Well, I'm not a newbie, I know about policies and good practice, and have considered opinions about them. For my part was and am happy to discuss the specific facts about the article on its Talk page. Specific facts. Not sweeping generalizations. Please see the article's Talk page. Cheers, everyone. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the current version of the article with this version from late 2005 makes Everson's protection and ownership of the article apparent. He is opposed to any substantial editing of the article, and will revert any such. Previous AfDs had comments such as "Keep, but edit"... that's impossible with Everson acting as watchdog. Everson claims that since the content has existed so long, it has been "vetted" and therefore should not be removed, but the only reason the content has remained so static is because he is reverting nearly all edits to it. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As the Living Person in question I have to say (again) that there is a difference between objecting to summary deletion of two paragraphs with content that has been stable for a long time and "ownership". I and many other people have reverted all sorts of vandalism to this article since 2005. (The diff says there have been 293 edits to the article between then and now.) Now, on the Talk page of this article, I have asked specific questions about the material you feel has been "improperly "sourced" or is "unverifiable". You've not answered. Two other editors have defended the status quo of the page, as it happens (and I did not ask them to, either). It seems very much to me that you aren't really interested in the article or its contents, or indeed in me as the subject of the article. Rather, it seems that you are merely interested in playing out a control scenario to teach me as Wikipedian a lesson or something. That, at least is what you have said above, and here and here. -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I want you to allow the article to be edited like any other article. No more, no less. Gigs (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't edit, you blanked, which is not appropriate editing to any article. And you keep talking about me instead of substantive issues of content raised. Seems to me you want to delete relevant and (indeed) verifiable material just to Teach Me A Lesson. -- Evertype·✆ 07:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Paring back a BLP to only verifiable material by removing self-published material is not blanking. Gigs (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't "pare back", you deleted two paragraphs. Two other editors who are more familiar with the subject than you are have said the same, and indeed have said that they found nothing unverifiable in the text as it stood. You certainly are pursuing this zealously, but it is very difficult to see why. -- Evertype·✆ 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:COI are substantive issues. The BLP Noticeboard is not about simple content disputes. It says so right at the top. If this were a simple content dispute, we would not be here. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only person who has made this into an issue is you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gigs has marked the RfC he opened as resolved, indicated that he will no longer edit the page, indicated that he would request that protection be lifted, and stated his justifiable expectation that those who see Everson as being in compliance with the COI and Ownership rules will henceforth monitor the page. Would someone with the power to do so please facilitate Gigs' unprotection request once he makes it? And then relegate this BLP/N item to the archives? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of Image of un-named female in public location with Caption

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27261720@N00/2715186206 shows a female human being with no name. They are playing The Game, a sad and rather juvenile activity, rather like editing wikipedia. It was proposed to add this image to the page on The Game with a caption along the lines of "A player announces loss". One editor vehemently opposes this on the grounds of WP:BLP, they have refused to specify which part of the policy. As the female is not identified it seems hard to use the image to breach WP:BLP as no biographical material is being written about a specific person. I wondered if they might consider the photograph to be original research - they seem to make no objection to the caption. However they also seem to object to any image being included in the article at all, so I am not sure if I am wasting my time discussing this here. Claiming WP:BLP allows you to bypass the 3 revert rule after all. Does anyone know of any valid concern we should address before restoring this image?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you case say a photo with a clearly identifiable person in it doesn't raise BLP issues even if the person is not specifically identified. This doesn't mean I'm saying the photo shouldn't be there rather it's a mistake to presume there is no potential BLP issue. And in extreme cases BLP does allow you to bypass the 3RR. (I don't believe it's a wise decision here but IMHO rather then arguing over that it's better to use it as an opportunity to discuss the matter.) The best thing to do here is to discuss the matter on the talk page seeking outside opinion as you have done so here since it's apparent the user has genuine concerns. If consensus is against the user then sure restore it but not until then Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We do have Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy rights and commons has Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people which seem relevant here. From a brief look thorough the discussion it appears you may be able to get in touch with the person in the photograph. If this is indeed possible, it would seem the best way to allay any concerns Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was told commons was not relevant by the objecting editor - and this is a public location so it seems in line with privacy rights. There are very similiar photos in the article on Tennis with exactly the same set up. If I am told to delete this picture on grounds of WP:BLP I will have to delete an untold number of other pictures. This is one reason why I fail to understand the objection - such photographs seem widely used in wikipedia already in high quality articles. So yes, I still fail to see what possible contentious biographical information is being presented here about what we presume is an alive but unidentified individual. If somebody could frame a really dangerous issue we should address I woud appreciate it - but I honestly can't notice one.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting in touch with the subject may be the best way, lets hope they're not dead.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well one possible albeit weak objection is that you are claiming the person is playing the game (as described in the article). However the sign itself is not sufficient to establish that. It's possible even if perhaps unlikely the person is referring to some other game. The question then becomes whether claiming someone was playing the game as described in the article is potentially defamatory. While you could try to argue the same for tennis IMHO it's a lot more difficult since it's less likely you can misidentify whether someone is playing tennis. Also since you identify the person as having lost the game, it's possible the person was simply joking rather then conceding defeat in which case you could argue the that identifying the person as having lost the game from the photo is potentially defamatory. These may be weak examples, but the point is you do have to think about these sort of things when it comes to BLP. But my more general point is that it's clearly possible a photo can be a BLP violation particularly considering it's caption or placement. For example, a nude photo of a clearly identifiable person from a private location is likely to be a BLP violation. Worse for example would be a photo of someone engaging in sex (the person identifiable) and using that as an example in the adultery article as a person engaging in a extramarital sex. Or the obesity example used in the image use policy. In other words, even if this case isn't a BLP violation it's a mistake to think "as the female is not identified it seems hard to use the image to breach WP:BLP as no biographical material is being written about a specific person" Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes theoretically I would agree with you, but in practice if we applied such high standards to all the images there would be a terrifying wave of images that would raise a river of angst amidst the banks of editors working in this wiki. We all know what is going on this image and the argument for defmation is surely so feeble as to be laughable. I take the general principle that we can obviously defame individuals through the use of images and captions.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So high standards are bad? I think you want UrbanDictionary or some other site along those lines. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What would I want with those? Would you mind commenting on the question I asked instead or were you unable to comprehend the point I was making? There are many instances of images on wikipedia that are taken at face value as illustrations. If we demanded legal proof that each one was actually such wikipedia would contain very few images indeed. Most of these images are entirely harmless - such as the one in question here. Consider a photograph of a couple walking in the park captioned "couple walking the park". Harmless? Well what if they weren't walking!!! (the horror!) lets not even consider that they were not a couple or indeed perhaps that it was not a park but actually a municpal gardens. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is, we have rules and standards to follow. You seem to not care about rules as long as you get to do what you want to do. I would suggest other websites if you think following rules is a drag. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a red tape factory. Somebody made a complaint about this image, I asked why, they did not answer, so I come here to gain extra opinions as well as starting a RFC. I think that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do within the normal scope of wikipedia. I don't understand this attitude. When dealing with this article I have come across a raft of strangely applied rules. One admin threatened to ban me because I wanted to add a Date for a number cited in the reference into the paragraph. Strange thing to be threatened with when implementing standard wikipedia policy. They refused to elaborate on why, just as with this complaint--ZincBelief (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't a red tape factory, but this particular bit of red tape already exists in the real world whether we like it or not. See personality rights. I didn't make it up, I'm just familiar with the real world, unlike some people here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Individual clearly knew they were being photographed. Occured in a public location. Playing a silly game isn't a BLP problem. There's no issue here. Can we now focus on actual problems please? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I didn't want to bring this question here I was forced to. If this image goes so does everything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9tanque--ZincBelief (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Knowing that they were photographed and consenting for the photo to be used elsewhere are different things entirely. This is not a public figure or public event where news photo rules would apply. Use on an enyclopedia, especially since we include the rights for others to publish for profit versions, should require model releases to be within the law. If we have other photos that do not follow the standard legal guidelines on such usage, that's not an excuse to continue violating those standard legal expectations. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It really isn't relevant. Model releases aren't necessary in public locations. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• I really can't bring myself to get worked up about this photo. It is respecting of personal dignity, consented by an adult with enough autonomy of mind and movement to be going to a comic convention, previously published, to be used in an encyclopedia article which itself has been discussed at length by the Community on no fewer than nine occasions. If the subject of the image complains, the photo will be deleted through OTRS, everyone knows that. Until then, I think we have more serious problems to be discussed (e.g. identification of non-notable minors above). Physchim62 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Privacy rights and BLP do not apply here. This is person is outdoors at a public place, and has no expectation of privacy. She is not engaging in any illegal act and is fully clothed. There is no reason to refrain from using the image, if it has any actual encyclopedic use. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would dispute your interpretation of privacy rights, but there's no encyclopedic purpose served by the image anyway. It in no way helps any reader understand the topic any better than without it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not is has encyclopedic value is another issue. This board is for potential BLP violations, and none exists here. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that it was ok to restore the image then Durova? The image illustrates an essential part of the game and is thus significant. I think it is probably the only part of the game that can be illustrated in anything other than a cartoon fashion. Maybe you should skip over to the RFC to answer these points :) --ZincBelief (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the encyclopedic value here. But there isn't any BLP obstacle. If there's some other discussion where BLP concerns have been raised regarding this image, please link it. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DreamGuy's comment, the relevant page is Commons:Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. Specifically In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), assent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual. Commons and Wikipedia normally defer to each other on policy issues where one or the other project is silent. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Legally this image presents no problems, as has been iterated, public place, knowledge photo was being taken, no expectation of privacy. So long as the license is compatible for use on wikipedia then there wouldn't be any legal, blp or privacy issues. To me this image seems relevant and enhances the value of the article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, she likely has no idea that her image has even been uploaded on a free license to Flickr, let alone is aware it was ported over here and is being pushed for innappropriate inclusion in an article. This is quite clearly a situation where 'use it until she finds out and complains' is wholly innappropriate and totally unethical. You would not like this to happen to a relative of yours, so do not force it on someone you don't know. This is absolutely not a case of someone's face being caught in a public shot of something else, this is a deliberate portrait. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what? If anything the fact that this is a deliberate portrait makes the argument that this is ok stronger, not weaker. The person consented to being photographed in a public location. People aren't idiots, I don't know why you insist on assuming this person was. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mick, see my policy citation above. There is nothing unethical about this. It is compliant with policy, precedent, and the law. Durova^Charge! 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

rd232, please move your post into chronological order. Thank you very much for your concerns. Yet according to policy, those concerns do not hold weight with longstanding practices. As you may be aware, I am an administrator at Commons and have dealt with similar issues before. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No JoshuaZ it makes the case weaker. Consent for the taking of a photo in a public place for private purposes (there's no evidence it's a journalist taking it, is there?) is not the same as consent for publication, particularly on one of the most prominent websites (WP). I do not see why you insist she must have (a) anticipated that her friend taking a picture of her would result in its use in Wikipedia without her permission, and (b) that if she didn't she's an idiot, and (c) she probably isn't an idiot, so she did anticipate it. However it seems the policy doesn't care about this. I do wonder if there isn't a fuzzy middle ground here: not requiring permission in public places seems to be associated (to me) with photographing public places which happen to have people in them, not with photographing individual subjects in public places. Rd232 ^talk 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS there is a BLP issue since WP:BLP policy is founded on a "presumption of privacy", particularly for NPFs. (I don't suppose we're arguing that a face isn't personal information...) IMO, in an age of increasing identity theft, publishing an image of someone's face (even unconnected with other personal info, which may easily happen later on WP or independently) should require the subject's explicit prior consent at some stage. This has not been demonstrated. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The odd thing is that I'm usually known as a hardliner in terms of BLP. Rd232, your commitment to that policy is commendable. Please be consistent in its application by refactoring JoshuaZ back to its proper format. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring (my own) discussion comments hardly seems a BLP issue... Anyway, I'm confused, I tried to do what you said about chronological order and now I don't know what you want. Feel free to move my comments about as you think best! Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, the argument is being developed (by some) that policy (currently Commons policy not WP policy I think) is wrong. This can only be done effectively by reference to specific examples, so it may as well be here. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And as I stated above, Commons and en:wiki have a mutual custom of respecting each other's policies in instances where their own policies are silent. Therefore we do not grind a discussion to a halt merely becuase someone has an initiative to perhaps propose a new policy at divergence with the other project, while the proposal itself lacks consensus support. If it gains support and becomes policy here then so be it. Until such time the BLP issue is closed. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about stopping discussion? It continues merrily (partly via RFC) at Talk:The Game (mind game). Now if someone could respond to my BLP argument above (this being the BLP noticeboard), without merely citing Commons policy, that would be appreciated. Policy proposals should not come out of the blue seeking consensus, but be discussed in their pre-formulation stage (maybe to be aborted). Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about stopping discussion. Now that you have posted after my request for refactor, I repeat it. Please refactor JoshuaZ's name back to its proper form. You can hardly expect to be taken seriously at the BLP noticeboard while you insult a fellow editor in that manner. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO I finally see what you're on about - a space missing between JoshuaZ's name and the word "it". Perhaps, per WP:AGF, you coulda just fixed it, or at least been more specific sooner. NB My browser is bizarrely slow on large pages, it's like watching an old (slow!) teletex typer, so spelling and such suffers as I can't see what I'm typing when I'm typing it. Rd232 ^talk 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it particularly funny that the imagepage on flickr is now updated to link back to this discussion :D Personally, i very much support the statements by User:Physchim62 and User:Durova. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who started this sorry debate by finding that image in the first place, can I sincerely thank everyone who has commented here for your time and thought. It is surprising to me that this warranted such controversy, but this is most likely to due to nature of the page, The Game (mind game), and not the image at all. I am glad that my reading of WP:BLP and the guidelines on image use on Wikipedia and WikiCommons are backed by consensus here. I was concerned that a policy mentioned by MickMacNee of requiring consent for use of all images of identifiable living people on pages not directly connected to themselves would be very restrictive, and I am pleased that there is indeed no such policy. Fences and windows (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If we adopt the policy some here is advocating, to not use photos of identifiable NPF's without written consent, it will force us to remove MASSIVE amounts of images from wikipedia and commons. If an image is compliant with law (i.e. the subject has little or no legal recourse for it's use) then that's as far as we should take it. People are not stupid, they know if they pose for a photograph in a public place or even are just in a public place that their expectation of privacy is gone. Even if they're not in a public place but visible from one they have little expectation of privacy (in your home with blinds open so visible from street). For us to nit-pick and require releases from every NPF in this fashion will only hinder the progress of this project. It will devalue the encyclopedia. You have to draw a line and Common's has with images of this nature. This image is 100% compliant with policy and the law. There should be no reason it couldn't be used. Plus I don't understand how this page (the game) is anyway controversial, how could anyone be offended by their image being used there? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that the image is not a minor? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it matter, the same laws about expectation of privacy apply to minors as well in public places. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Since consent is not necessary in this setting, her ability (or lack thereof) to grant it is not at issue. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly some think that complying with the law is morally enough to protect WP's existing image/image use. It's a point of view. Another one is that there are higher standards worth discussing, since there is no law I know of dedicated to regulating Wikipedia and its particular circumstances. Reasonable people may differ as to where WP should draw the line on likely balance of harm (to itself and to others) involved in these policy choices. Rd232 ^talk 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you want to draw the line, one has no expectation to privacy in a public area (and very little if none if can be seen from a public area) the law is pretty clear on that (tested quite regularly I think by tabloids). If we draw the line at no images of minors without expressed written consent, I think that goes way to far and harms the value of this resource, likewise if you go even further and no images of people without expressed written consent (which I think some people are hinting at here) then you've completely devalued this resource. There are some limits, like it would be inconsiderate to use clearly identifiable picture of an overweight person in the obesity article, but obscuring out their face on the same image should be completely acceptable. There are limits, but to put a blanket clause that all identifiable people need releases for us to use their image is going way to far. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody thinks the law is the only issue with images. We delete lots of images we can legally use. On BLP, we routinely remove material, that many legit publications would feel safe publishing. But the image mentioned at the start of thread is obviously harmless since it's a person posing in public. Even if we had a claim of model's release, how could we absolutely metaphysically certain it was really from the actual person? Maybe she's only 17, and can't consent. We can always concoct absurd reasons to worry about what may be. Unless/until the subject complains, there's absolutely no issue to even discuss. On a side note, I happen to agree with some, that the image is utterly useless in the article in question. --Rob (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's useless, seeing how she's actually playing the Game. I suppose pictures of people playing chess are useless too, as they don't add to understanding of that game. Anyway... I don't this image should not be used as a battleground for people's interpretations of Wikilaw. If you want to change or add to WP:IUP, discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy. Fences and windows (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, she's not playing the game. The game was over when she thought to write the sign. That's the game. With Chess, you can actually illustrate somebody actually playing the game, while they're playing the game. A picture of a person with no chess board, no chess pieces, holding a sign saying "I lost a game of Chess" would be equally useless. --Rob (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige

• David Miscavige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've done some cleaning up on this article recently. There was a Criticism and controversies subsection in the article, which I merged up higher in a chronological format [22]. I also removed some unsourced material, removed some questionable external links per WP:COPYLINKS, and tagged a few sources with missing {{page number}}. I would appreciate it if a few other editors could take a look through the article with these issues in mind. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The article reports some very strong allegations made against Miscavige. The problem is that they are unsubstantiated and of a very personal nature. Part of this material is cited to the Portland Mercury, other parts to a British ITV television program. Some outside eyes would be very welcome here, just to get a perspective on how appropriate it is to prominently include unsubstantiated allegations in a BLP. Outside editors, please have a look and help us out here. Jayen466 10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Portland_Mercury. Jayen466 11:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hasselbeck (again)

What is apparently the same user under a different IP is readding BLP violation content to Tim Hasselbeck -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello wikipedians.
1)I have no control over my IP. That doesnt matter anyways. wikipeida is for all to edit regardless of whether I join or not.
2)I ask that you look @ the info I added to Tim's page (2his wife Elis' page as well). It is his parents, brothers, wife, kids. All info is sourced. It ISNT detailed info like their birthweights or fav colours; it is simply just DOBs. This info was released by the Hasselbecks, as well as by ABC, NFL, Disney, & People (magazine). Thanks. 70.108.74.81 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has again added the defamatory comments back to the Tim Hasselbeck article. I suggested page protections, but they indicated [23] that the disruptive IP series should be blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I DID not add defamatory stuff. I added names & DOB. Pls look @ the edits. redpen needs to actually edit instead of just reverting. If any1 should be blocked it should be redpen for wikistalking plus not reading. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a substantial BLP issue. I've commented on the Talk page re other issues (WP:NPOV, WP:V). Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 La Salle University men's basketball scandal

2004 La Salle University men's basketball scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Billy Hahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The scandal page is virtually on sourced, the one source at the bottom can hardly be called a source by our standards. Plus the whole scandal section on Mr. Hahn's page isn't sourced. Many BLP violations and problems! Is the scandal page salvageable? Anyone want to tackle that? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this article before. Wasn't it on this board a few months ago? I've done my little bit - removing names from the lead, and removing an improper assertion of lawbreaking by the coaches (unsourced, and also improper to conclude that someone broke the law even if sourced without an official finding).[24] I think it's salvageable but it is quite a mess, and debatable that the whole thing should be stubbified or blanked without prejudice for a properly sourced do-over. I seriously think we should remove all the blow-by-blow accounts and speculation so as to discuss it in general terms and/or redact all the names. Wikidemon (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubbed with a chainsaw. As it stood it was fit for deletion - the material can now be replaced if/when someone wants to do the sourcing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I used a weedwacker for a little more trim. Not much left except the title. Does this warrant an article of its own? --Tom (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Robyn E. Kenealy

Robyn E. Kenealy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. Cameron Scott has said he wants to send this article to AfD. He's been removing content and citations, and undoing my edits when I replace them. Doesn't seem like it will be a very fair AfD discussion with all the content gone and no evidence to support what's left. We've been having a chat about it here: Talk:Robyn_E._Kenealy but it's got to the point where I think others need to get involved. Thank you. Vegetationlife (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the actual removal of content, but I will tell you that what's been removed would have no effect on the outcome of an AFD. I think you should also try another read of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A reliable source is typically from a publisher that exercises editorial review, and one that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that can be demonstrated by reviews, citations, or notice from sources that aren't being argued about (e.g. almost no one argues that the New York Times is unreliable, although it may print a bad article now and then). Blogs, Wikis, and similarly self-published sources are OK in limited circumstances for sourcing content, but they do not demonstrate the notability of a person. This is the root of Cameron Scott's issues with the article, and it is the major issue that will determine the outcome of any AFD on the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Others should get involved - well yesterday, I asked the comics project to take a look, it's starting to look to like we'll merge all of this content (what's reliable and usable) to some form of larger article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Hilton

The subject of this article is complaining via OTRS that this article is not meeting WP:BLP. If we could get some additional eyes over at the talk page, that would be extremely useful. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Angelo Manioudakis

I am the subject of this article and would be grateful for any feedback on whether or not I can be deemed "not notable" and therefore have grounds for deleting the entire article based on the following Wikipedia policies:

1) "If you were only notable in connection with one incident, topic or matter, and are not notable per se except for your role in that matter, then an article based on that incident or matter will often be more appropriate than one about you specifically." 2) "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." 3) "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."

Thanks,

Eastlane6 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Manioudakis. -Atmoz (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

William Berry (artist)

I could use a few more eyes on this article. Someone associated with the artist is trying to turn it into an unsourced cv. I've left a message about this on their talk page but it may not have registered. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Masterson birthdate

Chase Masterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I suspect that information in this article violates WP:BLP. Specifically, it includes poorly sourced information, but when that information is erased, edit wars ensue and it is reinserted. See the article's discussion page for details. Summary: Masterson's brithdate is a hotly debated topic in Trek fandom. There are no original sources for her alleged birthdate, only user-contributed websites or websites which cite no real sources. Other sites have a different birthday. The arguments in favor of keeping the 1963 date include inadmissible evidence (college yearbooks, etc.) which prove nothing. This is particularly sensitive since Masterson was the victim of a stalker / identity theft hoax. I suggest listing the birthday (verified by her official fan club), but not year, until an original source comes to light. // Smokefree (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As it has been four days with no response to my post here or on the article's discussion page, I am editing the article to remove the poorly sourced material per WP:BLP. Do not revert the edit (see WP:3RR) without first discussing here and reaching a consensus among admins. Smokefree (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that a definitive answer to the issue has been obtained. See here. Correct date now in article. Cubert (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The link that was provided is broken. I have left a note on the talk page. — OranL (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack, or valid criticism?

This may seem to be self-evident, but I don't want to wade into a potential minefield. Bear with me while I ask a question about an unnamed BLP.

If an article on individual "A" contains a referenced section which states that: pressure group "B" has criticized pundits "C" and "D" for citing "A" and failing to identify individual "A"'s views on related subjects; pressure group "E" has criticized media outlet "F" for not mentioning "A"'s views when offering him a position which was tangentially related; and pressure group "E" also criticized media outlet "G" for mentioning that pundit "H" supported "A"'s views, and "H" had received money from interest group "I", while not mentioning that "A" had written favorably about "I" (and by extension "H"). As I said, each of the sections contains citations, but they are from the websites of the pressure groups issuing the complaints. This seems to me to be an elaborately constructed coatrack. I'd prefer not to identify the specific BLP until I get some feedback, because I may be over-reacting. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Such sections can have various problems. Among them are WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. Citing partisan B for the proposition that partisan B said something is also using partisan B's words as a primary source, which in turn raises original research problems. How do we know what partisan B said? An editor read it directly and characterized it. Even if we could remove the reliability problem by simply quoting in the article what the person said, e.g. "Partisan B, on such-and-such source, said 'xxxxxx'", we do not have any third party reliable source to establish whether that is of any weight, or relevant to the circumstance at hand. Thus, it is poorly sourced and that becomes a BLP issue. Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This could raise serious issues but the exact details could matter. Wikidemon sums up the possible problems well, but without a more careful examination of the actual article it is hard to make any stronger statements other than that there may be (and probably are) issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The worst case scenario is if this is sourcing press releases unreported in any reliable secondary sources and of little significance for the person: that should be out. On the other hand if an incident generated substantial WP:RS coverage (not including the media outlets criticised) and had substantial impact on the person's career, say, then it should be in. Somewhere inbetween, excessive detail on lots of incidents of minor significance will still be coatrackish - it should be possible to summarise the criticism based on reliable secondary sources to ensure a weight in the article appropriate to the significance of the incidents. It's possible that the significance is so small that (some of) the incidents should be excluded, even if they are well-sourced and covered in secondary sources: given the volume of tripe published in news media and their enthusiasm for navel-gazing and using free material (press releases), there are vast quantities of verifiable material which has little or no encyclopedic merit - and WP:NPOV (WP:WEIGHT) requires us to leave it out. Remark: a lot of this sort of material is originally added in a flurry of recentist WP:NOT a newspaper-breaching activity, eventually edited into something coherent and well-sourced but ultimately of questionable encyclopedic value. I wish we could figure out a way to strengthen policy to discourage it; or at least make the relevant provisions clearer and more prominent. Rd232 ^talk 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since there seems to be something resembling a consensus here (three posts which generally track with my own view, and nothing otherwise), the article in question is the one on Steve Sailer; the paragraph in question is the last paragraph, which has a cite from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and three cites from Media Matters for America, which say (essentially) "We criticize Steve Sailer for...". Sailer's views may be antediluvian, but he's not a high-profile writer, and is pretty much ignored by the media in general. The only cites on Google News are eight articles from VDARE—three written by him, and the rest referencing other articles he wrote for the site. FAIR and MMFA may or may not be reliable sources for some issues, but in this case, they are the originators of the criticism, and are primary sources. If the issues they raised were of significance, they would have been discussed in other reliable sources, which does not appear to be the case here. (There are plenty of blogs discussing Sailer, but blogs are never considered to be reliable sources for a BLP.) I will delete that paragraph in 24 hours, pending any further discussion here.Horologium (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "Ossa on Pelion" is apt. Sans any attempt at balance, it appears that the paragraph is ill-suited to the BLP. And the extensive use of blogs to state what Sailer's views are is unwise -- people with opposing views may have a tendency to misstate the views of the ones they oppose. And a blog by "Sue Deaunym" (pseudonym) is not precisely within a mile of being RS, no? Do a lot of choopping there. Collect (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot BLPs with the problem of special interest groups being only one to criticize people on minor issues major WP:RS ignore but partisans trumping those minor criticisms as central to the person's life and work. I'm beginning to suspec that wikipedia is use to make sure that these special interest group criticisms then make it into major WP:RS many of which come here first for info. And then partisans rush back to wikipedia to say that some WP:RS source agrees! So we do have to be very careful about this sort of thing and squelch it in the bud when it's WP:UNDUE, NPOV, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam Curry

• Adam Curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm having some trouble explaining to IPs that something is not a controversy, until multiple notable sources say the same. These people seem however intent on inserting their original research. I could use a hand. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt Le Blanc

• Matt Le Blanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an editor from a floating IP, but most recently 70.108.118.234 (see sockpuppet case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.108.110.22) has repeatedly added WP:BLP violation material regarding a stripper to this article despite numerous warnings about adding defamatory comments to articles without it being supported by reliable sources. The improper editing of articles of living people has persisted across numerouss IPs and bios of living people (including Omarosa Tim Hasselbeck and misquoting a living person at Tara Correa-McMullen) so I am not sure whether IP range block or semi- protection of the current targets is needed. (note the IP is not always the editor who initially inserts the bad material, but refuses to take responsibility for when the bad content returns through his/her reversions)// -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt LeBlanc semi-protected by Ged UK [25]. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

David Blaine

Can someone verify content of a Television show (I am on dial up connection). An IP editor is adding content that s/he originally stated [26] referred to "a street magician" into the David Blaine article. When that was removed based on WP:OR basis (we would need to make analysis to know who the "street magician" was) the editor returned the content, now phrased as if Blaine was specifically identified. [27] If the TV show specifically names Blaine, I have fewer concerns about the content being in the article, but if Blaine is not specifically named it needs to be removed from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Loic Le Meur

• Loic Le Meur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hello, I am Loic Le Meur and my page has many inaccurate statements so I would rather report them here than edit it myself, hoping one editor can take the time to fix it.

-"In 1996, Loïc Le Meur founded his first company, interactive agency B2L, which was sold to advertising agency BBDO in 1999 for ca. $3 million."

The amount of the sale has never been disclosed and this number is wrong. Should be removed IMHO

-"In 2000, he founded application service provider Tekora and had to fire sell the company to French software company Access-Commerce in 2002 after the burn out of $6 million in 24 months and total revenues of $150,000.[citation needed]"

It is correct that I founded Tekora and sold it to Access Commerce. The rest is just plain wrong, there was no fire sale, the funding number is incorrect and when it was sold the company had millions of euros on its bank account which can be easily verified with Access Commerce. There is no citation reporting anything stated above.

-"In 2003, he got involved with French weblog hosting company Ublog which he purchased from its founder, fellow Breton Stéphane Le Solliec in October 2003.[6]" Ublog was not a company but a website. I founded Ublog SA after acquiring the website. Stephane Le Solliec can confirm he created the web site and sold it to me, but did not found Ublog SA as there was no company. I founded Ublog the company after buying the website bringing the website as an initial asset.

-"In 2006, Le Meur joined the RSS Advisory Board, the group responsible for the RSS 2.0 specification." I have left this group a year after I joined it as I was not active there and I do not think it is very significant to remain on my bio.

-there are large parts of my bio missing, namely in the career LeWeb conference as a business and Seesmic Inc, my latest venture. If an editor is interested I would be more than happy to provide all necessary information or help as I would like the bio to reflect reality. Thank you in advance. Loiclemeur (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced info disputed above, and added a couple of {{fact}} tags. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Tookey

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

I've noticed problems with this article before. I've cleaned it up again, but could people put it on their radar because it seems to be a bit of magnet. Anyone with a better clue of fighting this stuff should feel free to give me pointers. Hiding T 16:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible BLP problem (minor conviction)

Could people here look at Pete Johnson (American football)? There is a minor conviction noted at the bottom of the article. I don't think it warrants mention, and as written there are probably issues of undue weight, but I'm in the middle of a run of other stuff. If someone here could check it out, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve Rider

Steve Rider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've noticed there are some comments on this page that are more opinion than factual relating to his objection to some housing development near his holiday home. I don't think it belongs on the page. There is also a comment by the mention of an incident where "yobs" targeted a party of his which says "poor local people. Yobs are Sports Pundits" Well, he's a presenter for a start but not particularly fair or relevant.

I've never edited a main page before and I'm only posting this because it probably needs an eye keeping on it as there appear to be some disgruntled people who are targeting his page. Kateab (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed. I have tidied it up, removed the unsourced/POV language and left what is notable and attributable to sources. Will watch also. Mfield (Oi!) 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Adán Amezcua Contreras

The Adán Amezcua Contreras article alleges that he, and his brothers Jesús Amezcua Contreras and Luis Amezcua Contreras, are drug kingpins. But it seems none have been convicted, and it appears charges against Adán have been dropped altogether. There are WP:RS that various governments believe they're drug smugglers, and for the charges. But should we really have three articles (which are essentially the same) which consist entirely of unproven claims, and in particular should we have one for Adán, for whom it seems no charges are pending? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the newest reference is about 6 years old; for a BLP alleging such serious crime, surely we need to keep the article up to date? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a newer source:

• Juan Balboa (2005-12-23). "Confirman sentencia definitiva a dos de los hermanos Amezcua". La Jornada (in Spanish). DEMOS. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Now why we need three separate articles all saying pretty much the same thing is a different matter … Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Mark Ciommo

This article was largely the creation of MCintern (talk · contribs), CiommoIntern (talk · contribs), and Boston City Hospital IP address 140.241.0.20 (talk · contribs). The latter proposed it for deletion on the grounds that "Mark Ciommo himself requested its deletion". The Proposed Deletion nomination was reverted as vandalism, because the article was blanked along with the nomination. I have, however, deleted the article nonetheless and re-started it from scratch as a stub.

In part I have taken the request from 140.241.0.20 — whom I suspect, in accordance with Ockham's Razor, to be simply the person with the "intern" accounts logged out — at face value. But in part this was because the existing article was appallingly unencyclopaedic. (I invite other administrators to glance at the "What Others Think Of Mark" and "Motivation" sections in the deleted revisions as some of the more egregious parts of that non-neutral and wholly unsourced biography of a living person.) Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Crampton

Could someone have a look at Peter Crampton? It seems there are quite a few people with this name. On the talk page, one instance of descriptions of two people ending up in the article was noticed, and I'm worried that it might have happened again. Can anyone verify this, added by two IP addresses back in June 2007. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The issue on the talk page was dealt with in more depth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crampton. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Winona Ryder - "Russian-American" category?

Various editors have been adding Winona Ryder to the category "Russian-American", on the grounds that her paternal grandparents were Russian Jews who emigrated to America. As I have pointed out on the Talk: page:

1. The description defies both logic and common sense. If an individual had one great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent who immigrated from Russia, would we describe them as a "Russian-American"? Is there are sort of "one-drop rule" at work here?
2. The description is particularly inappropriate for descendants of Russian Jews. A "Russian Jew" is a specific ethnicity, or, rather, sub-ethnicity, being a sub-ethnicity of "Ashkenazi Jews", which in turn is a sub-ethnicity of "Jew". A "Russian Jew" is not an ethnic Russian - these groups had different ancestral and geographic origins, lived, for the most part, in different communities, practiced different faiths, and even spoke different languages (Yiddish for the former, Russian for the latter). You'll note that the article on the latter is careful to distinguish between ethnic Russians and Russian Jews. It is misleading at best to equate the two. For that matter, people who describe their ancestors as "Russian Jews" often do so only in a very inexact way; the vast majority actually came from the Ukraine or Belarus, as a result of being forced to live in the Pale of Settlement.
3. In any event, even if you were unaware of the difference between Russian Jews and ethnic Russians, the rules of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP still apply; they both demand that we only describe as "Russian American" people who reliable sources describe as "Russian-American".

In response, the editors have started an "RFC", in which, apparently, these issues are irrelevant, so long as enough editors vote that the category can be included. I've brought the issue here for further review. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a complicated issue. We don't need to get into the ethnic/racial/whatever distinctions between general Russians and Russian Jews. We don't put people into ethnic categories unless we have explicit sourcing describing the individual as such. I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline anywhere about this, but this has been standard practice for some time. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (writer)

Dan Schneider (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject has been sock-puppetting. He has been editing out corrections, reverting pages whenever substantial corrections appear, engaging in personal matters on discussion page (as well as counter-editing/reverting/wheel-warring there). He the page was built by subject, absent references, absent confirmation, absent verifiable truth.

He has also been seeding references and links to his own self-generated material on his home website into film and literature articles throughout Wikipedia in ongoing violation of the self-promotion guidelines.

This page needs to be attended to by reliable senior editor(s) - these issues need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.130.24 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• One of the issues that actually needs attention is the above editor making edits like this one. (Those kind of edits have been the only ones to either article or talk page since the incident last year discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Dan Schneider (writer). A diff of the article for that time period shows only maintenance edits to references markup, spelling, and the like.) I have attended to it by revoking the account's editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)