Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

George M. Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His partner has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

R'kitty offers a superb summary of her position, along with a misrepresentation of mine of equal quality. First, note, that I am a strong scientific proponent of the work of Profs Church and Wu, and of their joint work, scientifically and educationally at Harvard. I have no personal or professional bone to pick. I simply believe that Prof Church's and Prof Chao-ting Wu's (his spouse/partner's) populating the largest part of the Church article, personally, has lead to a promotional sense in that Wikipedia article, such that it mis-uses WP as an extension of Prof Church's faculty and other self-managed webpages. And, contrary to R'kitty's statements regarding repeated requests for concrete examples of POV or OR, I have repeatedly made clear (i) that per WP policies, primary sources cannot be used to establish the primacy of a scientific discovery, (ii) that to use them in this way is to conduct OR, and (iii) for a scientist and his partner to populate the vast majority of the article, and to do so with only such attributions to establish the primacy of scientific discovery consitutes, prima facie, a gross COI and POV issue. In addition, I note that there is no mention of anything negative in any material posted by these two (no mention of controversies following any of various statements or writings by Prof. Church). Here, in fact, is the last explicit statement made to R'kitty on this matter:

Note, I added the "[generally]" here in clarification; for the original, and further discussion, see [1].

Finally, the thing we do agree on is that "The opinions of editors here [at BLP] are welcome." Very welcome. I encourage editors reading this to skim the Talk page just linked, and to review the Edit Summaries for the article, noting the vast proportion of appearing material introduced en masse by Prof Church and his partner (vs. the relatively minor changes and additions made by others). Then, to examine my claim of the article's—Profs. Church and Wu's—reliance on primary sources to establish Prof. Church in the list of "firsts" that appear, vs. WP policies:

• WP:REDFLAG ("Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest", etc.),
• WP:PSTS ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.", etc.),
• etc.

—regarding the interpretation/OR that appears implicitly in all Church primary source claims. As well, to search the word "controversy" in the article, and then to look in (via Google or other search) on the various controversies that have followed Prof Church's ideas (real or media engendered, re: neanderthal comments to Der Spiegel, ideas in Regenesis, etc.), which, if they appear, receive only a single, positive line or two.

Bottom line, we cannot delete self-promotional text/articles offered by small personalities and organizations, but allow them from esteemed ones. The rules are made for everyone. A WP article largely created by the article's subject and his partner, an article that lacks any critical commentary/discussion of others in re: the subject's life and work, and that makes claims for primacy of discovery based on the article subject's primary publications, is, prima facie, a clear case for COI and POV review. I stand by my earlier, opening request at that Talk page, [2], to ask that these two editors no longer contribute to an article that so clearly personally interests them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Leprof 7272's post is very long, she's done an excellent job illustrating the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are thanked R'kitty, from the bottom of his/her heart. In future, perhaps a simple bravo (rather than brava). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That custom ambox at the top of the article has Leprof written all over it. I take the view that the other three amboxes sum up the article's issues, and that the signature Leprof six-clause sentence is unnecessary.--Launchballer 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Cleanup tag has been edited to shorten, for reasons other than this editor's non-AGF insinuations. Otherwise, in response: source considered, and all deserved merit ascribed. I urge other editors to acquaint themselves with this User, en route to evaluating his message. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tags are concerns with the contents of an article, and the whole point about them is to fix those concerns so they can be removed. The COI tag specifically is used to invite a review of the content given concerns that the article might lack neutrality (in either direction). This should obviously be done by an uninvolved editor. Once the content is deemed to be OK, the COI tag should be removed and replaced by a {{connected contributor}} one in the talk page. In an an ideal world what happens next is that people with a COI never edit the article at all, because it causes the concern about neutrality to resurface. Unfortunately, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and there's nothing in it that specifically prevents or forbids COI editors from editing the article themselves. So every time they edit instead of request an edit, the problem returns. On the other hand, there is an extremely large number of articles which are neglected because the only people interested in them also have a COI, which leads us to huge backlogs in the requested edits categories or simply doing a wink, wink when we see obvious COI edits as long as they're not too bad. I mention all this because Leprof 7272's suggestion that the COI editors stop editing is not actionable - there is no way to prevent someone from editing an article, COI or not, unless they are being disruptive and can be blocked solely for that. So it's best to just work with them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, this simple tag replacement cannot be quickly done, because—as the expert tag that appears there makes clear—expertise is needed to evaluate each individual claim (and there are many) of the preeminence of Church in each scientific discovery, priority that is currently only supported by primary sources from Church et al. In re: the request not being actionable—sorry, I see such actions being taken all the time here, by admins, and by editors acting through admins. The proposal is clearly actionable: first, make the request of these two editors to not to edit their own pages.If they are notable as individuals—and Prof Church clearly is—others will add to and maintain the page. If they have issues with content that is added or not added, they can raise the issues in Talk. Someone independent of the material can thereafter respond, and I have already offered to be such a one. Second, failing this, it becomes more difficult, but there are certainly other administrative actions that can be taken—again, such things are done all the time. And I would add that actions are elsewhere taken to restrict authorship, with less ample evidence of self-interest (and consequent COI/POV issues) than are clear here. But, again, a main issue has to do with failure to establish preeminence of discovery through independent secondary sources, and this is seeing some feedback, see next comment. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Leprof alerted me to this issue on my talk age. I think Leprof raises some legitimate issues here, and {{autobiography}} is probably warranted. As far as autobiographies go, this one really isn't all that bad, though. I'm used to more over-the-top, overt promotion (see Sharon Cuneta for an example), and this one seems almost balanced in comparison. However, the scientific studies are surely primary sources, and there are some interpretative claims made from them. For example, the article claims that Prof Church "published the first direct genomic sequencing method in 1984" and uses as a citation his own work from 1984. It may very well be true that this is the first work to do so, but we should have a secondary source say so. I'm not sure it needs all those cleanup tags, but it does need a bit of cleanup. It would probably help to alert a relevant WikiProject (maybe WikiProject Medicine?). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Review, NRP. Note to others, NRP and I have been on the same and opposite sides of opinions, and I appreciate the objectivity, thoughtfulness, and subtly he brings to his review (and integrity, note admission of my posting to him). The issue with the 1984 citation is one of the series of cases I have tried to call attention to, with regard to needing secondary sources for claims of discovery preeminence. As for how this compares to other autobiographies, I cannot say, though we should wait until someone interested in Neanderthals has had their say. I can suggest that subtlety in self-promotion may be a characteristic of the more learned, and Profs Church and Wu are clearly that, but such does not make this aim acceptable here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I see it, the problem mainly is that the tags contain allegations that basically boil down to Leprof saying that there may be issues. That primary sources are used does not imply POV. There is no interdiction to subjects editing their own biography. Technically speaking, this is not an autobio either, because most of the content was added by other persons (one of them the subject's wife, but still). I am not at all against tagging pages if there are problems, but if challenged, the problems should be identified (with sources showing that the allegations are correct) or the tags removed. Just saying that you think there may be a POV does not suffice. Neither of the COI editors (the subject and his wife) have been combative as yet. Both have edited quite in the open under their own names (unlike everybody here -me included- participating in this discussion) and have not attempted to hide anything. Unless sources can be presented that show that their edits are POV or, worse, false, I do not see any reason for a tag (except for an "involved contributor" tag on the talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated, this is a disingenuous representation of the case. EVERY appearance of a primacy of discovery claim in this article that cites an article by Prof Church is at issue (COI, POV issues), as it is not independent. When the citation is a primary source, the issue is a deeper, broader one: add Original Research to the preceding issues, as posting by the editor, even if not the author or his wife themselves, reflects original research to have selected that one primary source, deciding that it was authoritative in making the primacy claim. Do you need a list of all of these occurences — to clarify when a sentence in a scientific article is making a claim about a discovery? To clarify that the source is authored by the article title or his wife? That the source is a primary one? All of this is prima facie apparent. Your claim that I am not being specific enough is specious; I have stated the foregoing repeatedly. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• LeProf, please learn about links as in this edit where you have used an ugly and wrong format to link to this page and in your extended content box above where you have copied a quotation instead of linking to it. If you copy and paste, the reader will always be suspicious that you have modified the text to suit your thesis. If you link, no such suspicion can exist.

You are incredibly and, probably incurably, long winded. You have expended about 8k bytes on this page alone over a simple question of a COI tag. I agree with Randykitty: there have been no COI edits for a year so a COI tag at the top of the page is not needed. If you still think the page is biassed, don't moan about it - change it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my lacking your technical prowess at properly and beautifully linking material at Wikipedia, RH. I am afraid this discrepancy in our skill levels (just as other discrepancies between us) will have to remain. Otherwise, clearly I was in error thinking that you might act consistent here with long patterns elsewhere, of require editorial independence to those contributing substantially to articles. I am saddened at this missed opportunity to find what appeared would be clear common ground. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree the COI tag is not a badge of shame and it should be removed and any remaining problems should simply be fixed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue of "just fix it" already addressed above, to User FreeRangeFrog. I cannot make sense of the badge of shame statement in the context of a discussion where the claim is made that editing by a scientist and his wife, making "first to discover" scientific claims based (largely) on primary scientific sources, is suspect for COI, POV, and OR reasons. Sorry, je ne comprend pas. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To address the one specific concern raised by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) above, I have added an independent source in this edit to document "the first direct genomic sequencing method". Strictly speaking, the source is not secondary, but it is an independent source that supports the accuracy and notability of the statement. I also agree with Randykitty (talk · contribs), RHaworth (talk · contribs), and Keithbob (talk · contribs) that the COI tag at the top of the article is not justified. In addition, the article does contain a significant number of secondary sources. Hence I have removed the attention banners at the top of the page. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First, user Boghog takes an example, fixes it, and declares problem solved — though the nice NinjaRobotPirate-provided example has been repeatedly offered as an example of the problem, and not the problem per se.

Second, Boghog does this correction of single example based on what he admits is "[s]trictly speaking... not [a] secondary" reference (though the issue is that use of non-secondary refs to establish primacy of discovery is to exhibit WP:OR on top of the POV and COI issues). Thankfully, the non-secondary source he offers is independent, and so we can acknowledge this as a partial, and so mediocre fix to one example of a large problem in the article (see responses to Randykitty, above). Well, a start.

Third, unlike Ninja's preface, and demonstrated integrity, Boghog fails to declare that he is a generally biased party (having opposed me repeatedly in various venues, over everything from the conformational rigidity of steroids to the a proper definition of natural products). Need I say, elsewhere as here, he is always right, and I am always wrong?

Fourth, while every one else here (including Randykitty, the original discussant) have expressed opinions, but left the article under discussion alone, and therefore respected the debate, editor Boghog instead edits the material being discussed. In modifying the document and issues being discussed, he hijacks the course of discussion, away from deciding if these two non-independent editors should be asked to recuse themselves from editing their own (their spouse's) article, and away from the broader, deeper issues of broadly operative OR, POV, and COI issues. In doing so, he muddies the water as to the matters being discussed. (How does one look to understand tags being discussed, when they are changed before discussion comes to a close?)

Hence, I propose Boghog let matters proceed fairly, instead of imposing his conclusion before discussion ends, especially given the matter of his bias. I will revert his edits, so a consensus can fully develop. After a consensus appears (and this takes more than the few days thus far), I will honour the decision of the POV and BLP communities.

As I fully expect to be reverted in this, by Boghog/friends, and so to see this discussion re-muddied: I ask if Boghog reverts, please, in spirit of fair play, some other editor, go to the Church article and revert (leave the article as it was at the beginning of Randykitty's start of this discussion). I will not revert a second time; if no one does, we are left trying to discuss the "moving target" of the original and his edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

After giving it an hour, and re-reading, top-to-bottom, the content here: I am moving the discussion on my COI/POV and OR objections to Prof Church and his wife Prof Wu being the most substantial contributor's to Prof. Church's article here at the English Wikipedia, and the nature of their non-independent editing, to the COI noticeboard, here [3]. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard is not moving in any solid constructive direction, and is repeatedly failing to address the core issues (FreeRangeFrog and NinjaRobotPirate being the exceptions). My request that these two editors be asked not to edit this article is not being discussed. The matter that Original Research is required for primary sources to be used to make claims vis-a-vis being first in a scientific discovery is not being discussed (and while one editor tacitly acknowledges the substance of the issue by fixing one example, the rest are simply ignored). FInally, the fact that such claims, whether based on primary or secondary source, constitute COI and POV issues when the person making the edit is the author of the article (or his wife) is again not being discussed. Instead, focus has been on technical matters, or why I have not just fixed the tens of issues myself (exceptions, see above). I have asked the COI noticeboard to address the basic claims of COI, POV, and if possible, OR issues, and have separately asked Randykitty, who chose the original Noticeboard venue without discussion, to support me in this move. Please direct all further discussion there. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I've somehow gotten involved with an editor who turns out to be the subject herself, who has added a ton of information, initially unreferenced to her article. I reverted the information HERE because it was lists of WP:TRIVIA, however, she later proceeded to add her full biography and resume from the her website HERE and left a note on my talk page saying that I had no authority to edit the page. HERE. When I reverted the edit and replied that wikipedia is not supposed to be a resume, she got her lawyer to post a cease and desist. HERE I replied HERE and removed any incorrect citations HERE. But I get the feeling she is still upset about the whole thing and insists I am totally screwing up the page even though I've tried my best to keep it neutral and remove any offending and incorrect statements.

I really don't want to deal with legal issues but this is pushing WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO that I need your help to resolve. In the meantime, she is editing the page and fixing up the information, and I will try to cooperate and help her get things properly cited. And it did prompt her to update her bio on her official site to include all that new information, which is good. Thanks for hearing me out. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC), updated -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be an unambiguous block per No legal threats, per this diff; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAngusWOOF&diff=619631112&oldid=619605498 Tutelary (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely: I strongly advise you to report this legal threat at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To add to the fun a new account has just appeared whose first edit has been to delete the COI flag from the article, which is suspicious to say the least. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Doan Hoang, and I'm not going to sue you. But could stop giving me a hard time? I tried to fix some incorrect information on my page (which a fan named Robert from Boston originally put up and wrote to me about it. People have changed it significantly since then, and it still had some misinformation and wasn't updated. When I recently tried to change it several times this year, AngusWOOF kept changing it back to the wrong info. It was REALLY, really, annoying after hours of trying to get it right. Can you imagine if it were you, that you saw information about you that wasn't true or was out of date, worked to change it, then someone undid your work? I didn't know how to use Wikipedia before. I didn't know there were talk pages. I didn't know you could undo someone's changes (and unfortunately, editors keep undoing facts about me.

This is one major issue I have with Wikipedia. The most reliable source (me) is now flagged as unreliable by AngusWoof, and when the info was wrong, it wasn't flagged (!) It was prevented for most of a year from being corrected. AngusWoof, can you just leave it alone and take down this post? I'm sorry I gave you, AngusWoof, a hard time for giving me a hard time, but hopefully, you can understand why I might. Nothing is wrong now with the article now. It's been gone over with a fine tooth comb and most everything I wrote has been removed by others. So it's no longer COI. I'm just someone who survived a war, lived to tell about it in a PBS documentary, and I didn't want incorrect information about me out there. People, journalist, fans, etc. started to ask me about these things that weren't correct.

I thanked AngusWoof for attempting to fix this problem after I figured out how to write to him. I would appreciate it if we could just remove the flag and leave the article as it was without the flag now that it's finally more correct. I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junotcat (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best plan would be for you to post your proposed edits to the talkpage of the article, particularly those that correct any inaccuracies. Or you can indicate there which version you regard as the accurate one and what is wrong with the others. Other editors can then evaluate the edits and, as appropriate, include them in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article on me is currently fine I guess except I just want it back to not having a COI flag on it as it was before and it would be nice to have my short films listed. Anyone, most of my contributions were taken out of the article. Everything else was written by others. I changed my birth place and the information about my tours for the State Department and UN. I tried to update my filmography, but it was reverted. believe AngusWoof removed my short films and wrote that they are unimportant. Short films are a major category in film festivals and awards, such as the Academy Awards. I have had shorts of mine win prizes, but someone, II can live with that, despite it being annoying. The article has now been gone over by several editors who are not me and seems to fit Wikipedia standards according to the ways listed. (I've annoyingly had journalists and other people tell me I only did 1 film due to IMDB and this article, who don't seem to believe me when I tell them the truth! What a bizarre world we live in!) If you could stop from trying to protect the public from truth, Jonathan A Jones, and others, maybe some people could not be given misinformation. Thank you! Đoan Hoàng (please note the incorrect spelling of my name without the marks.) User:Junotcat — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The short films can certainly be put back in the filmography. I just didn't want the article to be a repeat of your bio on your official site, or anything that resembled a resume/CV because then it would be flagged with more rule issues such as WP:RESUME and WP:NOTADVERTISING. For example, the complete list of festivals that your films were in and their sponsors, and the speaking engagements at the various universities, the complete list of schools is not necessary. They can go to your website or the film's article for that. Select the most important ones including the notable awards. The filmography sections on wikipedia it is usually just the list of the films, and if they're an actor, the person's role in the film. The descriptions of the films (both short and feature) would be great for your bio section. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We'reI AM also trying to find as many independent secondary sources for the information. That will help a long way in not having the article tagged as COI just because it's coming from the primary biography source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we" in this context? Please be aware, AngusWOOF, that you may not share your Wikipedia account with any other person. One person, one account. See? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant generic "we" as in Wikipedia editors involved on this page. I don't have any others using my account. I was hoping there'd be more than just myself looking after the article. If not, then never mind, -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I removed some unsourced material. Are there any English source citations, and are those required? I couldn't read the frech citations so I left material in that had those. This article could use help. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

English sources are not required, although I always get jumpy when I see a BLP sourced largely to non-English sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

jumpy? good one. I did a little copy editing, but the article still has BLP issues. I think I ended up at that article from Jimbo's talkpage. Something about the article effecting the subject's love life. for real :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_168#.22Knowing.22_someone_through_Wikipedia.--Auric talk 14:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Snyderman

The article here contains contradictory information about where Dr. Nancy Snyderman lives (Princeton and San Francisco) and the hospitals she is currently associated with.Dennypackard (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed some of that for you. What do you think of it now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi- I'm just about to head out of the door, but this popped up on my watchlist. Several editors have made comments about the content of this article, which, they claim, contains unjustified negative information about a politician. Could someone please look into this? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Luis A. López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed some unsourced statements in this article that I've been trying to remove. [4] However an IP is saying a picture on a blog is an acceptable source for "He has won numerous writing awards for his poetry and short stories." Can someone else take a look? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress is a self-publication blog site, so it is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He probably did have the "Editor's Feature Choice for Poetry" in one issue of that magazine but that's a far cry of what the article was claiming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I just filed an AfD procedurally for someone who claims to be the subject, the article has some clear BLP issues, and more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Relating to the recent decision by the Tricycle theatre to not accept a festival being supported by the Israeli embassy, someone has written that Indu is embroiled in an 'anti-semitic' row.

This is libellous, the source article does not use this language and there is no hint anywhere that the justification for her action was anti-semitic. It is not anti-semitic to take a political stance against any nation, no matter what religion/race the majority of the people who live there adhere to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.56.141 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

William B. Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday, new editor @CrispinBurke: brought to me concerns that the article on William B. Caldwell "mischaracterize[s] his service" in some ways he did not yet specify. I do not have the time to address this right now, and I don't want to let the matter drop since this is a BLP, so would someone mind looking into this? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume the problem lies with the Dawood Military Hospital "scandal", and that seems rather well sourced (simple Google search shows this was a big deal). If there are counterweight sources CrispinBurke or anyone else want to offer up to make it more neutral, we can certainly consider them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, the Dawoods Military Hospital investigation is the only issue on the page that "mischaracterize[s] his service". The material is properly sourced with reliable sources supported each claim. One of the sources provides a quote from the deputy inspector general claiming there was no "attempt ... to delay our investigation ... or turn it off", which neutralizes the section. We could trim down the section in accordance to WP:UNDUE, but I don't think that would be necessary.Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke (talk)I served directly under the general during the period in question (early 2012 until his retirement). I can even have him contact you to confirm that the Dawood scandal was generally unrelated to his retirement...he had already made the decision to retire (early 2012) before the Dawood allegations were even made (June 2012).

@Meatsgains and CrispinBurke: The supporting reference for the claim that the subject retired because of this issue is a primary one, which we obviously prefer not be used. Can we get a secondary source? If not, I would support removing the association between the controversy and his retirement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to copy edit the article, and the section in question, per the given citations. I have no other opinion, except I am going to bed. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I hope I am doing this correctly. Several months before the results of the investigation were released (nearly one year), LTG Caldwell was announced as the next president of Georgia Military College. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130226/NEWS/302260331/Retiring-3-star-lead-military-college — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@CrispinBurke: Thank you. So between that and the fact that the claims of the subject's career being ended by the scandal through a primary source, I think it's safe to say we'd rather not have that information at all unless and until we have a citation to a reliable secondary source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:This source [5] refers to Caldwell's request to retire, "knowing that these substantiated allegations would directly prevent any future promotion or assignment to a position of importance and responsibility." I can appreciate CrispinBurke's loyalty to his old boss, but why should this not be mentioned? EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurkeThe allegations weren't made until June of 2012. There's no secondary source I can find that far back, but LTG Caldwell had planned to retire sometime in very early 2012.

So really the question is not his retirement, but that he was allowed to retire as a Lieutenant General, despite the findings of the IG report? This based on the fact that he had served satisfactorily in his position for at least three years? Now, this is pure speculation as I have not yet found a source, but it seem the general was likely under investigation at the time he decided to retire. A source that backed that assertion would provide credibility to the investigation leading to his retirement. Major Burke, I can appreciate your loyalty to your old boss, but reliable sources say he got in trouble. If he got in trouble, in a career derailing way, it belongs in the article. These articles should not look like they were written by a PAO (though they often are). EricSerge (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurke The issue is the relationship between the IG investigation and retirement. The two are not connected. His decision to retire came prior to the allegations being made (initially in the Wall Street Journal in June of 2012, simultaneously voiced in a complaint to Congress), and well over a year (perhaps even 18 months) prior to the results of the investigation being released.

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

I haven't been around a lot lately and am not really sure about the status of court records posted to "The Smoking Gun" website. Would someone who knows this stuff better than I do and is more current on it please review recent edits to the Izola Curry article to see if the refs given are appropriate reliable sources for info that is (arguably) derogatory, about a living person? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Court records should not be used as references for anything related to a living person. Ravensfire (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At bare minimum, the inclusion of information specifically identifying her current residence is entirely out of order and has been removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the article. David in DC (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "controversy" section of this article appears to be entirely unsourced, and represents a substantive (and seemingly personal) criticism of the Bishop's religious practise. I am not a frequent editor, and this section seems to have survived and been expanded upon for a while, so I defer to the experts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.58.126 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced, but I am certainly no expert. --Malerooster (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

An anonymous IP, apparently associated with the US congress edited the article on Navi Pillay inserting a reference to Edward Snowden being a traitor [6]. A little bit of background here. Since then multiple IPs have been adding that - she has been criticised for defending ('traitor'/'whistelblower'/'defector'- changing choice of words each time) Snowden. Since, I did not see any criticism regarding her statement anywhere, I chose to revert to an earlier revision which merely mentions her statement. Could someone review the edit history? There were other attempts at vandalising the page earlier [7], [8]. Multiple eyes on the page wouldn't hurt. Thanks!  NQ  talk 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Decker:  NQ  talk 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm? (I'll take a look, but I'm curious why I'm pinged here in particular, I don't recall the article.) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I merely pinged an admin, who I thought was online at the time. Nothing specific to do with you. I received a couple of emails questioning my edits at that page. Just wanted someone to take a look. Sorry, if it wasn't good etiquette. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards,  NQ  talk 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, no worries! It was fine etiquette, I was just worried I was forgetting something, it's been that sort of week! Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Warner (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of years ago, User:Charleswesley70 (an SPA) added a statement to this article which is not footnoted and which I have not been able to verify from other sources. I removed this unsourced claim. A single-edit anon restored this claim. User:Banker212, a single-purpose account, edited this claim. I tagged the claim with "citation needed". Banker212 removed the tag with the edit comment "Macrakis makes unwanted changes. Google contacted. This sentence needs no citation since it is ME." I restored it with the edit comment "claims need evidence even if you know them from personal knowledge; see WP:OR and WP:BLP". Banker212 removed it again. To be clear, I do know Anne, but I haven't been in touch with her for years, and have no idea whether the claim is true.

Please look in on this situation. Thanks. --Macrakis (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Daniel Paul anywhere else except in WP mirrors. According to various press releases and her own LinkedIn profile, she is currently employed in NYC as General Counsel of a firm. [9] For the time being, I'm going to restore the tag. I recommend removing the claim until someone can provide a source.  NQ  talk 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Unsourced stuff removed, Banker212 blocked for 24 hours after twice re-adding this material. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I revised the Raven Edgly page today for grammar, layout and tone; however, I discovered during the editing process that none of the content can be verified, including the claims of the subject appearing in major motion pictures. Furthermore, the sole External link was to the subject's Myspace page, which is not appropriate anyway, and has been deleted. It appears that the subject, or someone close to her has published it for promotional purposes, even though the subject is not notable or suitable for a Wikipedia page. Even if any of the claims could be verified, the "uncredited" content was not suitable, as the information can never be verified. I have placed a BLP noticeboard template on the Talk page. I will also remove her name from the Predestination (film) page.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I almost flat out deleted it as a hoax but just in case I'm wrong, it's now at AFD. After a cursory Google search I don't believe the subject even exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The image "Raven Edgly in Titus Andronicus" on the page is that of English actress Flora Spencer-Longhurst. That, along with the mention of "Anna Rexic" (Anorexic) confirms this as a hoax. The edits and uploads of the article creator may need further scrutiny.  NQ  talk 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Rena Owen is a reasonably well established New Zealand actress. However I appear to be completely failing to get through to her (or perhaps her representative) that wikipedia is not a social media forum or autobiography hoster. Fresh eyes / fresh approaches welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems evident that the same person or PR firm (pollywood) is managing both her personal website and the Wikipedia page. The website, RenaOwen.com is "Copyrighted by Polywood. TM, Los Angeles, USA" . A clear case of COI.  NQ  talk 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your persistence and diligence with the situation should be commended Stuartyeates. I have placed it on my Watchlist as of today, in the event that I may be able to assist. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) called for redditors to vandalize his Wikipedia page last year [10]. People are rereading the thread with the start of season 2 of Gravity Falls and acting on it (see the contributions of Hunt8r (talk · contribs) for example).--Auric talk 12:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked a whole herd of SPA vandalism-only accounts and fully protected the page for 48 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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

In Talk:Nick_Stone_(author)#Nationality vs. Descent there is a dispute regarding the descent and nationality of Nick Stone WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't a dispute about his descent. He has self-identified as being of Haitian and Scots descent. What the dispute concerns is whether or not we can categorise him as both "English people of Haitian descent" and "English people of Scottish descent". We don't know his legal nationality or citizenship status and, especially at present when some Scottish people are particularly sensitive about identity, I'm concerned that we might incorrectly tag a living person.

More generally, I've always thought that these "descent" categories are usually pointless and almost always involve guesswork. This is an issue that has been raised by others at VPP in the past but I'm off to bed for a bit and so any links would have to wait. As an extreme example, place of birth has no certain relationship to nationality or citizenship: there are people born in international waters etc and, at a personal level, one of my relatives was born in Bangalore, India, but there is no way she would call herself an Indian national or citizen. She just happened to be over there because her father was working there at the time. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In the US one can be of more than one descent, so if a father is Dutch and a mother is Mexican, the child is of both Dutch and Mexican descent and gets two descent categories. I do not know the practical "limit" of these categories are as far as "Descent" goes. This is distinct from place of birth: An American child born to two White American parents but who was birthed in a hospital in Beijing is not of Chinese descent. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I understand that. I don't have a problem per se with showing two descent categories. I question the "English people of" bit in those categories. Far better that we have/use Category:People of Haitian descent and Category:People of Scots descent where and only where the descent relates to the immediate prior generation and, in the case of BLPs, it is self-identified. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My rationale is going to be short and precise. In a conducted interview he has said that he is half-Scottish (father) and half-Haitian (mother). However, Stone was born in England making him an English citizen and national. On the talk page I tried to eexplain the differences between nationality and descent (family origins according to Oxford) the best that I could. So in short, he is an English person of Haitian descent and an English person of Scottish descent and this is how I categorized him and I provided an overwhelming amount of resources and examples to help resolve this. I had also reached out to others to gain their insight on the subject. No matter what my attempt is, Sitush finds a way to turn it down in favor of his sole viewpoint. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Stone wasn't just born in England and spent a few days; he's a British citizen and spends his days in England. So I don't know what point you are trying to make with that "extreme example." It doesn't apply to Stone's case at all. It also seems to me that you do not know the citizenship laws of England; being born there automatically grants you citizenship just as the United States. I've mentioned this before, its called jus soli. In France, one being born in France does not make you French, you have to have a least one French parent or wait until you are 18 years of age. (Jus sanguinis) Everywhere is different. Furthermore, your stance changes every two seconds; at first it was about descent and now its about nationality? Come off it. You're wasting everybody's time and I honestly think that you are enjoying this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality - it is merely a legal device and it is not a consistent one. This, again, is something that has been raised generally regarding use of these categories. I really need to find the VPP discussion because, honestly, the whole concept should be abandoned as unworkable: people twist the definition to suit their pov. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that there is no such thing as 'English nationality' or 'English citizenship', legally speaking. The Legal status is British nationality, and British citizenship (not the same thing).[11] If and when Scotland chooses independence, the situation will clearly change, but for now, Stone is legally British, not 'English', and accordingly his citizenship (which is a legal status) isn't in of itself an adequate reason to label him 'English'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I mentioned that somewhere in the past, in relation to Scotland. Out of interest, what happens for people who have dual citizenship and/or nationality? My bet is those are treated inconsistently on WP also, and probably that the laws surrounding them are not consistent around the world anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

With people with dual citizenship, we should list both. We also go with the ol' xzy born abc formation. --Malerooster (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His main article seems to be ok, but this subarticle is crawling with non-notable information that is lacking numerous citations.  Noahcs  (Talk) 08:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I went through and removed a significant amount of the unsourced claims. Meatsgains (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

David Ward King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern: I am not sure that this is the right board upon which to put this information. I want to report an factual error on the wikipedia page for David Ward King. I am one of his great grandaughters. Lettie Reed King, my great aunt, was never married to someone named Crider. Secondly, please add to David Ward King's wikipedia page, that the Smithsonian Institution now has some of his materials in their collection.

Thanks,

Amy Burbank King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.179.19 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While the accompanying source (link) does mention both their names as members of the Maitland church, it does not mention them being married. A quick search of Ralph Crider and Rosetta Crider mentioned on that page reveals a 1940 United States Federal Census which states a Ralph Crider of Atchison, Kansas, born in 1872 being married to Rosetta Crider. (link). I have gone ahead and removed that part from the page. The original contributor @Springfieldohio: is not active any more. If I made a mistake and anyone has any other sources, feel free to revert. Regards,  NQ  talk 23:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Prince Azim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Turing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding Prince Azim (born 29 July 1982), is it right to put a living person like him into the {{WikiProject Autism}} because he has supported several philanthropic projects, including attending two autism-support events? Is this a BLP violation, or can a living person be put into the Autism project when he isn't autistic? What are the rules regarding those project tags on biographies? I noticed that Alan Turing has that autism tag on his article talk page, although his biography doesn't mention that he is considered to have been autistic. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Prince Azim one is questionable. I would not object to much since there is a certain sourcable "tie in" per say, ie charity work, ect. I removed the banner from the Alan Turing since that seems to imply something completely different. Unless there is clear consensus for including the banner there, it should stay out for now.--Malerooster (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this is all about the inclusion of the WP:AUTISM talk page template, these two articles are very different cases. Alan Turing was an autistic person whose neurotype is questioned. Prince Azim is an allistic person who is known for autism-related events. The centralized discussion at Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#WikiProject_Autism_banners_on_biographical_articles applies to Alan Turing, but not Prince Azim. Muffinator (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

_{And what is a neurotype(?) Inquiring minds want to know! Parabolooidal (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)}

Regarding Prince Azim, anyone whose notoriety is autism-related is within the scope of WikiProject Autism. Most BLPs in this category are researchers, activists, and leaders of organizations (Azim's work is similar to activism). A person does not have to be autistic to be relevant to the subject, just as a person within the scope of (for example) WikiProject Robotics does not have to be a robot.Muffinator (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation, since there is nothing shameful about supporting autism-related causes.--Auric talk 22:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation has to do with accuracy, not whether it's shameful or not. Besides, the template doesn't distinguish between someone who attended two autism-related events, and someone who is autistic. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Auric is probably referring to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The template doesn't need to make that distinction anyway. The article text does. Using the same example again, WikiProject Robotics is tagged for pages related to both individual robots and people in the field of technology. Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people can tell the difference between a person who is interested in Robotics, and a robot. Similarly with wikiproject LGBT you can tell from the text whether a person is LGBT, or is involved in some other manner (e.g. campaigning) However tagging Alan Turing based up one hearsay reference, and a second that I cannot read about Autism in children, when there is not enough third party references to put something in the actual article seems very strange. It seems like WP:POV opinion pushing. Martin451 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The lone fact that Alan Turing is a popular object of speculation (RE: possible autism) is enough to make his article of interest to project members. Again, a WikiProject banner on a talk page is not a statement, of fact or of anything, and therefore does not require a reliable source the way article text does. If people can tell the difference between an ally and someone with the identity the other is allied with, people can also tell the difference between someone who self-identifies and someone whom others suspect. Muffinator (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Turing is dead, so BLP doesn't apply, but would you be comfortable adding this banner to the talk page of a living person who was suspected of having autism?--Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not. Aren't categories for readers/users also? So that they can find relevant articles? So sticking someone, a Royal Highness from Brunei, into that category is very, very questionable to me. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we need to rely on reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found that a living person who was suspected of having autism, that can be included, with references to those sources, just as they can for non-living people (and indeed robots). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things need clarifying:

• (1) A WikiProject banner on a talk page is not in-article information. This conversation about reliable sources is largely irrelevant. Different types of pages have different guidelines.
• (2) The categories created by WikiProject banners are "(WP name) articles" and "X-class/X-importance (WP name) articles" and appear only on the talk page. They are not the same as those generally used for navigation. The WP:AUTISM template doesn't make an article appear in Category:Autism. The official WikiProject guide makes it explicitly clear that WikiProject banners are not, nor are intended to be, a duplicate of the category system. A category is in-article information (since it appears on the article page) and does need a reliable source. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It does not, however, apply to non-living people, while the article Prince Azim needs to be BLP-compliant, Alan Turing does not. Muffinator (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying Muffinator. You reverted me when I removed your WikiProject Autism banner from Prince Azims talk page. (It's still there.) Whereas the banner was removed from Alan Turing's talk page after a discussion on the talk page of Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. So you seem to be saying the opposite than what you are saying here. Your banner was also remove from the talk page of James Joyce and a few others like Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Isaac Newton, Charles XII of Sweden, Michelangelo, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bohuslav Martinů, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart maybe others by User:Nikkimaria per discussion on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. What's the deal? Parabolooidal (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Prince Azim, he attended two autism-related events, according to his biography - one in 2011 and another in 2013 when, in the words of the article, "he graced the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN)" in Brunei. No where does it say that he "is known for autism-related events". He also attended events related to the blind, ("the guest of honour at the "Seeing is Believing" fundraiser to raise awareness on caring for the blind, held in Brunei" in 2009. And "he designed unisex weekend bags for MCM", contributed to the Make-A-Wish Foundation in the UK, and attended a seminar at International Women's Day in Brunei in 2012 "The seminar aimed to raise awareness on domestic violence, child abuse and other issues affecting women in the nation." And in 2013 he attended Brunei's International Women's Day celebration again, "with a seminar focusing on empowering women." So he was know for his philanthropy, not "is known for autism-related events". Parabolooidal (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  Your conclusion doesn't match the premises. This a list of reasons he should be included in WikiProject Feminism (and WikiProject Blind if it existed), not a list of reasons he shouldn't be included in WP:AUTISM. Are you arguing that the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN) is not an autism-related event? Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and he's a film producer, according to his article[12], so lets add a category for that. Is there a Category:Film producers from Brunei? If not, lets make one. The more the merrier. And lets get a reference to support that he falls into the category of "anyone whose notoriety is autism-related"? Considering he has done nothing for autism outside of Brunei, that he is a Royal Highness in line to inherit the throne of Brunei, that he produces films and hobnobs with Hollywood types, is his notoriety really autism-related? And I think WikiProject Feminism has enough sense not to include him. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is a lot of different assertions made in a small space. 1) There currently aren't enough notable film producers from Brunei to justify creating such a specific category, but I would definitely support adding Prince Azim to Category:Film producers based on the information above. 2) The point about the notoriety being autism-related, I'm not sure if it's a false attribution or what, but I'm pretty sure it's fallacious. For comparison, should we remove Barack Obama from Category:African-American lawyers because he's famous for being a United States president and not for being black? Should we delete the entire living people category because no one is famous just for being alive? Famous people do things that aren't related to how they became famous. Their notability contributes to the notability of their actions. Now, this doesn't mean for example that farts are notable for the fact that notable people have farted, but it is pretty clear that Prince Azim is known for actions other than simply being a prince. 3) So what if he has done "nothing for autism outside of Brunei"? A person doesn't have to be internationally notable to be notable, and if they did, then Prince Azim shouldn't have an article in the first place. The National Autistic Society and Autism Society of America are examples of organizations supported by thousands of people, but specific to one country. 4) Judging by the member list on WikiProject Feminism, you are not one of them, so I'm guessing you don't know their reasons for not including Prince Azim, or if they even have one, as opposed to just not knowing of his existence. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why did you threaten me on my talk page for posting here Muffinator?[13] I have posted far less than you here and on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Anyway, since you did reply above today that Prince Azim is a BLP per Dbrodbeck's comment above the talk page should be BLP compliant, I'm going to remove the tag from his talk page. It seems not right to me for wikipedia to put this young prince from Indonesia in this category on talk. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN/"Transadvocate use in BLP, etc." and engage in discussion at WP:RSN where full details are mentioned. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? RSN can handle it and are doing. The problem is just that you don't like what they're saying. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it could be resolved here, but I don't think it's a BLP issue. Carolmoore keeps mentioning individuals, but she's referring to 'Some feminists' part of it being BLP, but no feminists specifically were named for that instance. Tutelary (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Craig Baird (racing car driver) is separated from his wife Louise. He still has two children and lives on the Gold Coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.218.101 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the proposed change? I couldn't find any, anywhere. Regards,  NQ  talk 23:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This proposed edit aside, there are lots of problematic and unsourced statements in this article; it probably needs to be cut down to size rather radically. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

Celebrity sex tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Myself and another editor are locked in a bit of a debate over 2 issues on this list, one that has direct bearing on BLP [14]. The Editor is claiming that one of these entries is a BLP violation, but there is no person is clearly identified to apply the BLP issue to. There are sources attributing the existence of video (film or digital format) of the celebrities engaged in sexual activities, but for the video in question the opposing editor claims that a violation has occurred because of who it could be, not because of who is actually identified. Specifically this is in regard to the Johnny Carson sex video and that one of the women in it may or may not be one of his ex-wives. Is this a legit removal of sourced material? I am not sure what the rest of the claimed BLP problems are.

As for the second issue, the Editor keep removing material citing a non-sourced definition of the material on the list or possibly just his own very narrow interpretation. Discussion about a definition was attempted here, without any consensus or progress.

Input please, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say it's a legit removal regarding Johnny Carson. The cited article says that he had 4 wives. That is a sufficiently small group that WP:BLPGROUP applies. Further, the sourcing is weak. The cited source is from the gossip section of the New York Daily News which cites another weak source, TMZ. We're an encyclopedia; not a gossip column. (I note that there are other entries in this diff[15] which I did not examine.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to BLPGROUP, but I am unsure as to how that applies. It seems that it would only apply to an organization or some other formal or semi-formal group. While Carson's ex-wives may know each other, I doubt they are "organized" in any way. I found a Fox News story about the take if that helps your source concerns. As for TMZ, granted they are plenty salacious, but I don't know that they are not factually accurate, and this is a list of celebrity sex tapes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have to side with removal. The fact that it's really not solidly confirmed makes me lean that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. A Quest for Knowledge pretty much nails the BLP issues related to the purported Carson tape; I'd add only that Carson's third wife (the only one who fits well into the reported time frame) has denied the report. As for the other tapes (as well as the Carson tape), none of them have been made available to the public, as I noted on the article talk page. The article lede says, clearly and expressly, that its subject covers only tapes made available to the public. What more needs to be said? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How about explaining you version of "made available to the public"? Granted I'm not hindered by the UK ISP filters that stop a lot of porn, but when I see screen captures of a video and I'm also able to find all or portions of the "alleged" sex tape online, I consider that publicly available. What do you not get about "publicly available"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Why don't you provide some RS-satisfying sources on that point, since there weren't any in the article. There are still a lot of people who say they've seen an Alyson Hannigan sex tape online, but no reliable sources (pretty much because there isn't one). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Several names of non-notable persons are included. Administrator action is requested. RR 2014 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I edited the article to remove the names. I don't think that the names were important to the article. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. RR 2014 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I happened to be looking at this in the light of recent events, and there is one section that is a bit of a mess. I have made a comment on the talk page here: [[16]] The problem seems to be dead links and WP:SYNTH. Could anybody interested have a quick look and check it out. Thanks.- MishMich - Talk - 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I was editing an article that included {{Opposition to NRMs}}. Realizing that it had a large number of names without sourcing, I removed them. I was reverted by Zambelo with the claim that ...these are know anti-cultists, even if they don't have an article yet. Large numbers of redlinks are discouraged in templates, but beyond that, I'm concerned we have what is essentially an unsourced list of people's names, in a rather contentious topic area, which would violate both the absolute requirement to source the categorization of people in the encyclopedia, and the verifiability requirements. I am however unsure if this is something that is routinely accepted in templates, so I'm looking for some second opinions before trying other avenues to permanently remove the names if at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Do sources clearly state that Marco Rubio belongs in the category "People associated with the Tea Party movement"? The BLP evinces no such sources. It does have a source where a person has the opinion that he is a "crown prince of the TPm" and "Tea Party Pretty Boy" but that is scarcely enough to link a person who is not listed as a member of any Tea Party organization or caucus, and where the person does not clearly self-identify as being "associated" with the TPm. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he doesn't self-identify or caucus with them, I'd say no. But if it can be shown that he is taking funds from them, I'd accept it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• "One of the top Tea-Party-backed fundraisers, Florida Republican Marco Rubio..."- MrX 01:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• If he's taking their money, it's hard to deny it. I'd avoid things like "standard bearer", "champion" etc. Those are pretty POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he is widely regarded as one of the TP standard bearers, along with folks like Rick Scott. For example, this source refers to him as a "tea party champion" and this one refers to him as a "one-time tea party darling". "Associated with" does not have to mean "card carrying member".- MrX 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems more like an issue of weight. As MrX has clearly demonstrated, I think, this person is associated with the Tea Party movement. Whether that's enough to include them in this category is a matter of debate among subject matter experts. Since I have never heard of this person before today, I am not qualified to say.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) I am temporarily crossing out my comment until I've had more time to research this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there are multiple sources for this information, it can be determined via consensus instead of via Collect's incipient edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me one single cite from Rubio saying "I am a member of the Tea Party." The cites given are akin to using allegations and editorial opinions as statements of fact which is precisely and absolutely a violation of WP:BLP. Having a person call a politician a "crown prince of the Tea Party" is pure opinion, and rhetorical opinion at that. I am aghast that any Wikipedia editor would use opinions as fact in any article whatsoever. The snarky claim that following the clear requirements of WP:BLP is "incipient edit-warring" is unwarranted and a violation of WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As much as I am not a fan of Rubio or the Tea Party, in the absence of anything like a membership roll with his name on it, I don't think we should positively identify him as such unless he self-identifies. It might be better to note that some pundits and analysts have drawn the link, but without presenting that as fact. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

We don't require "self-identification" to state that someone is associated with a political party. We have multiple sources making the association very clear. If I have missed something in the BLP policy that says otherwise, kindly point it out to me so that I can correct myself.- MrX 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources, not that we really need them:

1. "Rubio, a dynamic Tea Party candidate..."^[1]
2. " "He understands the plight of the common man a lot better than most because of his background," said Jason Hoyt, the director of the Central Florida Tea Party Council, who embraced Rubio early. "That really resonates with tea party folks." "^[2]
3. "The senator [[Marco Rubio] who was elected as part of the Tea Party wave in the 2010 midterms, said he and his wife train at the shooting range two or three times a year."^[3]
4. "His political history also explains Rubio's special bond with the GOP's tea party faction."^[4]
5. "Rubio is renewing his outreach to tea party supporters and his advocacy for GOP causes as he struggles to repair his image as a conservative standard-bearer."^[5]
6. "Rubio, like some other Latino Republicans who have had high profiles in the last year, is a Tea Party conservative, and that – not his ethnicity – is what shapes Latinos’ view of him, political experts say."^[6]
7. "For months, Rubio, a Tea Party Republican from Florida, sent several daily press releases and appeared weekly on television news shows pleading the cause of immigration reform."^[7]
8. "And one other Tea Party senator, Florida’s Marco Rubio, is being hailed as a “savior” for the GOP as he moves to the center and negotiates an immigration reform deal."^[8]
9. "...Tea Party-backed lawmaker Sen. Marco Rubio..."^[9]
10. "Rubio was one of the first big wins for the Tea Party..."^[10]
11. "Then a rising GOP star emerges from the Tea Party ranks and makes his mark in Congress. In his first Sunday show interview, Senator Marco Rubio talks about the debt crisis and his political future." ... "A Tea Party favorite, people are already asking whether he [Marco Rubio] might run for president or vice president next year."^[11]

- MrX 14:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, you can show that Tea Party folks supported him -- but not that he supported the Tea Party nor that he considers himself "associated with the Tea Party." . In the 1950s, if the Communist Party "supported" a candidate, would you then have said the person was "associated with the Communist Party"?

By the way, the quote mining exercise above should recognize that one of your sources (Neshoba Democrat) states Rubio, a 2016 Republican presidential contender, has the ability to bring Tea Party Republicans and traditional Republicans together. Which is hardly supportive of your claim that the source says he is a Tea Party member in any way. Misuse of a source is not impressing me one iota. The use of the other sources is not a lot better if one reads them in their entirety. Collect (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. What I can do (and have done) is show that Rubio is widely-regarded as the "crown prince", "darling", "champion", "rising star", "favorite" and "candidate" of the Tea Party, according to a preponderance of sources. Rubio didn't seem to mind Mike Chris Wallace introducing him as "A Tea Party favorite" in 2011.- MrX 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You have shown nothing of the sort. The use of contentious categories requires strong sourcing -- and I showed one source you gave said he was a link with the regular Republican party - which rather belies your claim. And the silly claim that "he didn't object when Mike Wallace called him a 'Tea Party favorite'" proves exactly and precisely nothing at all. Again -- if a person in the 1950s has "Communist support" or was described as "a favorite of the Communists" I trust you, to be consistent, would have labeled them as "associated with the Communist Party" as a result. I would not. Cheers -- WP:BLP sets a high bar indeed for contentious labelling of people. Collect (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're exhausting my ability to assume good faith here Collect. I reject the premise that being associated with the Tea Party is somehow contentious, or that the sources are not "strong". It is very obvious that there are politicians who are members of the GOP and who are also associated with Tea Party, championing the Tea Party's causes. The parties are not mutually exclusive. You can elect not to believe that Rubio is associated with the Tea Party if you like, but our reliable sources are absolutely clear that you are mistaken.- MrX 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect is evidently in a mood not to be persuaded no matter how persuasive the arguments are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Contains members of the "Tea Party Caucus" etc. which is reasonable, but a great many are people who were simply "endorsed" by a Tea Party group which, IMHO, is insufficient to assert affiliation. What say others on this? Collect (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If they publicly disclaimed the endorsement, then it would be reasonable to remove them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is insufficient. "Affiliated with" implies a two-way connection. "Endorsed by" does not, especially since we are talking about a loose collection of endorsing groups, all under the Tea Party banner.--agr (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity. If the Tea Party endorses them and they are politicians, then an affiliation exists. I see that Marco Rubio is not on the list, so that needs to be fixed.- MrX 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC)BHO was "publically endorsed" by the CPUSA in 2012, so therefore we should list BHO as "affiliated with the Communist Party"? Nope. (and he did not apparently publicly disavow that endorsement) Browder of the CPUSA endorsed FDR's election [17] [18] thus "affiliating" FDR with the CPUSA? Sorry -- "publicly disclaiming an endorsement" has nothing to do with whether we should assert someone is "affiliated with" any group at all in Wikipedia's voice. How many more examples do you need to show that "endorsed by" means damn little and does not make anyone "affiliated with" any group. Collect (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Merriam-Webster defines "affiliated" as "closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position <the university and its affiliated medical school>"[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another definition.- MrX 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

AQFK, that an interesting definition. I accept it as an example, of usage, but I'm stunned they imply that it is typically a subordinate position. For example, it is common to speak of a doctor who is affiliated with a particular hospital, but they would take affront at the suggestion they are subordinate. I don't think my usage example is that rare.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Collect: If you can find plenty of independent sources that satisfy WP:DUE, then yes. This was implicit in my previous comment as well.- MrX 17:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd start with User:Nomoskedasticityagr's suggestion, but modify it to require affirmative acceptance. As Nomo agr suggests, being endorsed is not enough, however, there are plenty of examples where a politician may make the reasonable decision not to even mention a party, so failure to disavow should not be required.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "being endorsed is not enough" (wtf?), and I think "failure to disavow" is likely significant depending on what sort of benefit the politician has been happy to quietly accept. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I elided your response and that of agr. My bad.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it is not a formal organization, but a movement, and there is disagreement over who is or is not part of it, it is a POV/OR nightmare to have this category. TFD (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, and "affiliated" is such a fuzzy term anyway, it could mean anything or nothing. Lets hope that Justin Bieber doesn't endorse Rubio, lest he gets described as "Bieber-affiliated", which would be a truly horrific BLP violation ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

Appears to be a conflict of interest (vanity) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why? --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The creator of the page, User:HungryJack, has been around for five years. He has a somewhat limited editing history, seemingly focused on Presbyterian Church articles, but also edited Slow Movement. Nothing unusual here. Please see WP:AGF. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Kim Walker (bassoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a few eyes on this - seems to have been edit warred over by the subject and anonymous folk trying to document a "controversy" that seems to have dissipated and probably does not rise the the level of inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave a level 1 notice at User talk:108.6.182.233. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate some more eyes on this article. I have tried to avoid editing on the progress of the trial as I think it is a minefield, and have generally only intervened in that section on potential BLP and copyvio issues. I have now been asked to "stay out of this article" and accused of "trying to control this article" and not being neutral. I would prefer to stay out of it altogether but animosity related to the article has chased most other editors away. HelenOnline 06:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: I've left a note on the talk page of the article and watchlisted it. As for the content, I am not exactly sure what the dispute is aside from the unsourced OR which they later rectified by providing adequate sources. I'll take a detailed look at the tone and content a bit later. Regards,  NQ  talk 08:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NQ HelenOnline 08:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for three weeks; after that time anybody can edit. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bearian. It seems to be for only one week. I will let you know if there is still a problem after that. HelenOnline 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Erica Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article is a BLP nightmare that needs urgent review. I don't have time to do it at the moment. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I unlinked the External Link. That itself had multiple issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

But yeah, there still sure are a lot of locally significant people having their laundry aired internationally here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiple WP:BLP violations - asserting allegations as fact, for a start. And then there is the way it cites a Daily Mail piece on the results of a Dr. Phil polygraph test as if it was something more than psedoscientific bollocks produced for entertainment value. Utterly clueless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be stubbed or deleted ASAP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Valerie Red-Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've had this article on my watchlist for years; I can't remember how or why it's there. While removing the names of unsourced and non-notable family members from the lead this morning I scanned the rest of the article and definitely have some concerns regarding the content. Most of the material regarding her film activites is unsourced, but relatively uncontroversial. There is however a large amount of contentious information in the article that appears to be sourced only to primary documents contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm hoping that a fresh set of eyes could take a look at the article and its sources with an eye to ensuring the sources and the material they support are above board.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I tagged an unreferenced section, but it could use a lot more editing. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced content from the page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

the Alice Cooper band relocated to well north of Detroit. North of Pontiac even. That area is now known as Orion Township. I live in northern Oakland County and know where the house was at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.49.123 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I grew up in the Detroit area and saw Alice Cooper perform in Saugatuck, Michigan in 1969, at the very beginning of their success. So, I am in favor of accuracy in Alice Cooper articles. But you haven't pointed to the exact area where you see a problem. And we need a reliable published source for any change you propose. Neither your memory (nor mine) are reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We could use input on Paul Gauguin and Talk:Paul Gauguin. I made a major edit which is entirely sourced; essentially maintains the previous info while sourcing it and adding additional content. It has been reverted a couple of times by Coldcreation and Modernist despite no real concerns, these two users are reverting to an edit that they have both contributed substantially to, which is mostly OR. I have also been collaborative with their subsequent edits of adding info, before it was nonetheless reverted again. I am only trying to improve content and source it so that the bio is not such incomplete OR -Nonc01 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nonc01. Since Paul Gauguin (whose work I love) has been dead for 111 years, can you please explain why this content dispute is a matter for the Biographies of LIVING People Noticeboard? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, Gauguin has been dead for 111 years - beyond the scope of WP:BLPN by any stretch of the imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

HAHA my apologies, of course. If you might remain helpful, what noticeboard would this be appropriate on to attain discussion; aside from his Talk? Thank you. EDIT: I have found dispute resolution and will utilize it if it becomes clear that collaboration is impossible. Nonc01 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Political author publishes inflammatory book during election campaign; trolls and POV pushing IPs descend on his article. Request pending at RPP. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected by Diannaa for a period of 3 days.  NQ  talk 06:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

An edit that was both biased and inaccurate was sneaked in just as the BLP for Alejandro Betancourt López was been protected from edit warring. 116.193.159.36 sneaked in the edit 2 minutes before, as the page was been blocked by an administrator. One minute before this edit another very similar edit by 116.193.159.36 was reverted by the administrator at Derwick Associates. The administrator warned the user that both pages were about to be blocked, and he managed to sneak it in right before it got blocked. View Derwick's history and view BLP's history
The edit changed an NPOV paragraph that was citing the two conflicting versions citing their respective primary sources into a biased paragraph that stated opinions as facts and used biased language, for example changed "preliminary investigations" for "criminal investigations". 116.193.159.36 mentioned directly the BLP as been involved in a criminal investigation, but even the primary source in the article "people familiar with the matter" mention only Derwick Associates as been under preliminary investigations. No where is it mentioned that the BLP is directly under any kind of preliminary investigation. 116.193.159.36 also inserted the incorrect and misleading information a second time at the top of the page. Click here to see. I ask that the last edit made by 116.193.159.36 be undone as soon as posible as I think is clear that it states as fact a serious and unsourced accusation in a BLP --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look Im not objecting that circumventing admins is wrong, but Crystallizedcarbon's opinion cant be the only one considered here. This user, along with others, has been attempting to water down what a Wall Street Journal article had to say about Betancourt and the company he runs, Derwick Associates. The piece is about a criminal investigation into his and Derwick's activities. It is in the Wall Street Journal, not some conspiracy theory blog. The information added was not incorrect or misleading. It was the main topic covered in a Wall Street Journal article. Crystallizedcarbon and others editors wanted to add lesser details from the piece about Derwick's attorney's denying the allegations. The present info is notable, relevant, RS, and does not violate WP:BLP. Please consider this before any action. Righteousskills (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue has already been settled by an administrator Click to see. Thank you for the fast response.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like more eyes on these articles, which have been in the media lately, and the articles are out of date. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Three of the four paragraphs in the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign section of Charles D. Baker, Jr. were about a recently-passed gun control law [20]. The section not only unduly made this seem like the biggest issue in the campaign, is non-neutral (i. e. "the proposed law changed that to make your second amendment rights to be at the hands of an individual police chiefs beliefs"), poorly written, and mostly unreferenced. I have removed it, but did the editor who added the NPOV content has reverted it once already. Rather than engage in an edit war, I hope to reach some consensus on the matter here. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of removing the sourced material, somebody could expand the "2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign" section to include other issues in the campaign. Only one paragraph isn't sourced, which could probably be removed. The section really isn't long enough to cite WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of removing factually accurate sourced information. If it is poorly written in your opinion, fix the issue. blanking the whole subject of sourced information is not the way to handle this. Also you really should be getting consensus from the article's talk page. as i previously mentioned..or at least notify the editor.. myself you are complaining elsewhere so I can give my two cents. thanks. btw. I cited the unsourced paragraph for you. An opinion on a constitutional issue is definitely a legitimate topic and does not warrent blanking. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to make it more neutral and remove the part that was being used to make a point about a tangential subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous noticeboard discussion here. I trimmed down the article a bit and added various sources - from this to this version. The user 'Polywood' (see Special:Diff/284324608 and User:Polywood/sandbox) has been persistent in adding their POV version. The latest version breaks every syntax and adds more fluff. Instead of reverting again, I'm bringing it here. The article is in dire need of a major cleanup.  NQ  talk 07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also no mention in the current article of the time she spent in jail fro drugs see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11198715 http://www.nzonscreen.com/person/rena-owen/biography http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/film/21974/rena-owen-returns-rural-roots for reliable sources on that. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and left a message in their talk page. The lack of communication by the editor is worrying, and I hope it doesn't get bad enough that we'll have to block them. But that kind of plainly disruptive editing is not going to fly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, that article, that editor--yes. There is more to it, I just noticed: User:Polywood/sandbox. I never sent any email, of course, and then we have the usual charges of someone singling out someone else for mysterious reasons. If Polywood is indeed Owen's publicist, she should get a new one--one who understand the platform she's working in and its guidelines, and who can at least attempt to communicate with editors. As for my "interest", I didn't realize who Rena Owen was until after this edit--I remember being surprised after clicking "Save" (I made that edit, of course, because of the usual fluffy "award-winning", which we don't put in opening lines). Once Were Warriors is one of my favorite movies of all time, and the main character/lead actress is fantastic, so I suppose I'm not disinterested. If Polywood is indeed Owen, as is suggested here, then I suggest that she leave the Wikipedia editing to us and do what she does better than any of us on this website. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Yeah, It's been mentioned in almost all the sources I cited on that page, how she battled her addiction and served jail time. Notice how 'Polywood' conveniently forgets to include that in the so called "updated bio" they keep changing. Ah, good PR.  NQ  talk 05:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With remarkable timing, I also snapped Simsmi in NZ On Screen articles (here). The editing style is completely different, otherwise I'd be suspecting socks. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am Major Edwin Hunt MVO one time Bargemaster to H.M The Queen. I was not born in the London Borough of Camden. I was born in the London Borough of West Ham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.233.62 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Problem is, that's not what this book says. If you have any evidence you can show us, please do. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Can you find a valid source to prove it?, article, book, etc. in which your birth place is mentioned? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  A copy of Edwin Hunt's birth certificate can be found online, here for instance, clearly stating that he was born in West Ham. But in 1920 West Ham wasn't a London borough, it was a county borough, so there was no "London Borough of West Ham" then. Eric Corbett 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here. GiantSnowman 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, thanks. We accept that site, and such records, as sources for this kind of information? If so, please feel free to edit the article accordingly, and maybe you can do some more of your editorial magic: I'm sure Mr. Hunt will appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  This is why I generally avoid BLPs. The policy cited by GS above clearly says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth ...", which on the face of it rules out a birth certificate unless someone else has checked it and included their findings in a published book. Makes no sense to me. Eric Corbett 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, it makes no sense to me either (I used to use that website all the time until I was informed otherwise!) but them's the rules... GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• At best, I think we should remove the birthplace. Sure, it is sourced but I'd argue that it is not in fact reliably sourced: the book in question is taking its info from oral history projects etc and it looks to me like the specific interview was possibly not with the subject of our article. Basically, we're relying on gossip and the memories of what are in many cases quite elderly people. That doesn't seem like a great idea to me. In between times, I'll see what I can dig up. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I found a record for Edwin Hunt, allegedly born June 1920, West Ham, Essex, Suffolk. The link to the actual record (birth index second quarter of 1920 Apr-May-Jun) revealed that it was Edwin Toop, born in West Ham. Edwin Hunt (immediately above- for some reason the record was by first name) was born in Presect. This is off Ancestry- it looks like the Find My Past info is from the same faulty transcription. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea what Presect means- but it's what was printed! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Prescot, I think. Can you see any born in Camden? I can't, using FMP or Ancestry. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry! I read the records wrong- the ordering is by surname, hence there are two Edwin Hunts born in that quarter, the one born in West Ham has a mother whose maiden name is Toop (presumably the other was a child of a single mother). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, none born in Camden in 1920 (there's an Edwin C. Hunt born March in Bethnal Green). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you'd read the records wrong but I'm in enough arguments at the moment without getting involved in another ;) So, we have a possible hit in West Ham and none in Camden. As I said earlier, I don't think the cited source is as reliable as might appear at first glance. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with removing the birth place entirely until this matter is resolved with a reliable source. GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rules are rules I suppose. One thing is certain though, that even Edwin Hunt isn't a reliable source for Edwin Hunt, as there was no London Borough of West Ham when he was born in 1920. Eric Corbett 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's likely just an anachronism thing. It happens all the time, eg: with people who were born in the old princely states of India but nowadays say they were born in some area of Haryana, for example; or those who say they were born in Chennai when the place was not known by that name then. The other issue that arise is where one is born and where the birth is registered, which isn't even capable of resolution if he sends in his birth certificate because that shows residence and registration, not birthplace, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have commented out the PoB until the sourcing can be resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still no "London Borough of West Ham", and there never has been; the County Borough of West Ham became part of the London Borough of Newham in 1965. And what on earth is the reference above to "West Ham, Essex, Suffolk"? Essex and Suffolk are separate, neighbouring counties, and no place can be in both. West Ham was in Essex, but is far from Suffolk. ֻֻֻֻRolandR (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When I was adding to the info box that Fellowes party is Conservative Party (UK), I somehow messed up the info box so that it does not display itself in the usual way. Please fix this so that the info box will display itself properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgoth (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -  NQ  talk 06:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve Cohen (magician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) What's the best way to resolve a dispute about the repeated addition of religous/ethnic labels unwanted by the subject? I've reverted once before, and user Chambermagic (who seems to be either the subject or someone acting for him) has reverted three times. Continuing to remove the unsourced material feels like an edit war, but no one's talking, and the folks adding this are unregistered. This seems to violate WP:BLPCAT, but then that is for categories. Advice, please? It's my first dispute. Kjtobo (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The religious labels are unsourced correct? If so, continue removing the content. This material deserves inclusion to the page if it is supported with a RS. Meatsgains (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do per WP:BLPREMOVE. At what point is a request for WP:SEMI-PRO or WP:PEND appropriate? Kjtobo (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Submit a WP:SEMI-PRO request if they restore their content once more. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - it's worth waiting for a response to my second request for discussion, since the first talk section didn't explicitly request it. Do folks ever insert comments (visible when editing) at the relevant points in the article referring would-be editors to the talk page? Kjtobo (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in your edit summary you can say something along the lines of, "Removed unsourced material, see talk page". You can also include a link to the talk page so the IP users can easily be directed to it. Hope this helps. Meatsgains (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that parts of this article have become a WP:COATRACK. In particular, Roger Ailes#Newspaper ownership seems to be a poorly veiled criticism of the man. Please understand, I do NOT have a dog in this fight (I really don't care either way), I am simply bringing something to light that may be a problem. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hours ago I changed the Template:BLP to Template:BLPO at Talk:Robin Williams because Williams died 4 days ago. Moments ago I received the notification that I was reverted by @Aoidh: stating that "It is still a BLP article per WP:BDP. "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article" is inaccurate." The problems with Aoidh's revert, and those insisting Williams himself should be treated as a "living person" is that Williams is legally death; and WP:BLP is an in-Wikipedia rule.

The main problem is Template:BLP adds articles to the Category:Biography articles of living people automatically, and it is a totally inaccurate statement to label him as such. According to WP:BDP, BLP "[would apply to] people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." This specific fragment is problematic, for many reasons. Back in early 2013, BDP stated "Material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or notable suicides, is covered by this policy."[21] In other words, while in 2013 it was considered that the suicide or murder of somebody would affect living people (concerning personal details of family and friend, which could be published by media), the next month it was reworded to mean that "material that affects a dead person still being jurisdiction of BLP, indeterminately (up to two years)". I have several questions about this. The consensus (if any) even included an specific notation about it: "Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people." But somehow it was transformed into "Contentious or questionable material that affects recently deceased people should be treated in the same way as material about living people." As such, anyone can remove anything questionable about a death person as long as it is considered a "recent death", regardless the sources.

About Williams' case I have also other questions. Why would Williams be the only exception? None of the most recent deaths, or the deaths in 2013 and deaths in 2012 contain the BLP template in either, main space or talk page (although may include the Template:BLPO, because certainly some of them may have information about living people), so why the Template:BLP is not added to them as well? If the problems are the templates, these have to be reworded, but clasify someone as something he is not, in this case a legally deceased person as a living one, is in fact inaccurate and disrespectful. I hope someone can help me to answer these questions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's useful to contemplate whether an issue is so important that a battle is warranted. Let's say everyone else is totally wrong—is that really so terrible? Why don't you take the issue up again in a fortnight? Is there an actual problem rather than a potential problem? Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that harm may be caused easily to living persons where suicides etc. are involved - thus Wikipedia seeks to use conservative standards in articles involving any such material. It does not say Williams is still alive, only than Wikipedia policies still apply, and at less than the one week mark, your cavil is premature. Collect (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

All categories and tags should be altered appropriately once the subject has died. These are organizational aspects of the encyclopedia, and their presence or lack thereof does not affect whether BLP applies or not. BLP applies everywhere, under all circumstances and at all times. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:BLPO is the wrong template right now. That temlpate says that the BLP policy doesn't apply to the subject, which is false at the moment for this article, as this is clearly a case where "recently died" still applies. Williams is not the only exception, many high profile/traffic pages are treated with BLP applying until there is clearer consensus that it doesn't. If more than one person is disagreeing with you, then it's not time to change it yet.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that there is a difference between BLP applying even if there's no notification of it, and a banner at the top of the talk page specifically saying that BLP doesn't apply to the subject when it does. - Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tbhotch, it's a BLP article per WP:BDP. If the issue is that the template is adding it to a category, that is a problem with the template, but we can't say the article doesn't fall under WP:BLP when it does, and we can't have the talk page say "the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article" when Wikipedia policy very explicitly says otherwise. Between a category hidden down on the talk page and a notice at the top of the page saying that BLP doesn't apply, I'd rather have the category and fix it, given that the other is completely contrary to the WP:BLP policy, especially given the number of readers that are going to the page; that WP:BLP applies is a rather important note. That's why I reverted it, because where WP:BLP is concerned, especially an article with this much traffic, we need to get it right, and changing the blp parameter to "no" isn't right because it then displays false information on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

15 Aug 2014 - Since announcing that I will run against US Senator Harry Reid in 2016, my page has experienced ongoing edits by partisan Wikipedia users. Currently, I hold one of seven seats on the non-partisan elected Las Vegas City Council.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Two days ago, the partisan moved the article from "Bob Beers (Las Vegas City Councilman)" to "Bob Beers (Nevada Politician)". I moved it back for two reasons: first, because this creates ambiguity - there have been two separate people with my name seek and win elected office in my state. Second, the term "politician" is an evocative label these days - so evocative that it has been removed from Harry Reid's Wikipedia page by other partisan editors.

The next day, the same partisan made the change again, setting off an "editing war" and this entry into the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. The partisan editor this time listed his reason as "if he loses election, he will no longer hold that title but will go back to being a Nevada Politician." This statement is false - I lost reelection in 2008 and went back to being a CPA for a living, for the next three years, with no political activity whatsoever.

So I would like the community's help either by "protecting" the page about me from partisan markup, or to have my page removed from Wikipedia altogether so I no longer have to monitor it for such partisan vandalism.

Thanks for the administrator community's consideration.Bob Beers 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)bobbeers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)

Mr. Beers, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith and editing with a conflict of interest. I am not a "partisan editor" so please do not go throwing around things like that just because someone moves your page.

The article should be at Bob Beers (Nevada politician) or Bob Beers (politician). There is no ambiguity as the "other Bob Beers" doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Articles that need disambiguating are not listed according to the person's current job. So, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is at Scott Walker (politician) and not Scott Walker (Governor). Likewise, Chris Murphy (politician), John Walsh (U.S. politician), Jack Reed (politician), Tim Johnson (South Dakota politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician) and Ron Johnson (U.S. politician). As for what Harry Reid's page says, that is not relevant to this article.

Articles aren't moved around based on the person's job. If he stays on the city council he should still be at Bob Beers (politician), if he gets voted out of office, still at Bob Beers (politician) and if he's elected to some other office, he should still be at Bob Beers (politician). The article wouldn't be moved to Bob Beers (CPA) or Bob Beers (State Senator). Tiller54 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, admin community. I did not realize this contributor (Tiller) had cut and paste his comments on my article's talk page to this page. Is it adequate to reference my responses, which I wrote and posted on my article's talk page, or should I cut and paste them here?Bob Beers 01:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)

I have copy edited and wikilinked the biography, and also reached out to Bobbeers on the article's talk page and his own talk page. The issue of the article title presents a true conundrum, and a real challenge in disambiguation. In short, there are two Bob Beers. Both are from Nevada. Both are from Las Vegas. Both have served in the state legislature. Both are Republicans. I do not believe that they are related. So, that issue has no easy answer, and geniuses are invited to comment. I ain't one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No relation. But I sure have learned a lot about Wikipedia policies and guidelines this weekend!Bob Beers 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbeers (talk • contribs)

WP:QUALIFIER gives a little guidance, while saying that it's still down to editor discretion. The case of two poker players with the same name was ultimately settled with the parenthetical addition of birth years, (usually discouraged). It also says to Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term. and Try to avoid using ... anything capitalised... which combined with WP:CONCISE could also suggest (city councillor) instead of the more ornate (Las Vegas City Councilman). __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've suggested on the talk page, we could move Bob L. Beers to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1951)" and this article to "Bob Beers (politician, born 1959)", which avoids anything capitlised and uses only a single, recognisable and highly-applicable term. Tiller54 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly MrX and Cwobeel are engaging in an edit war with any editor that attempts to remove information that violates BLP on the Rick Perry article. There is no justification to name the worst potential penalties for yesterday's indictment and remove information where even well-know Democrats and liberals believe that the indictment is weak and has not support. That information is supported by a reliable source and they both have removed that information without discussion--just reverting in a blatant edit war manner.--NK (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked User:NazariyKaminski for edit warring on this BLP. I did not see any BLP violations that would grant this user an exemption from WP:EW, but please let me know if I missed something so I can correct as needed. Dreadstar ☥ 21:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a block is warranted. The editor did not exceed 3RR. If you're not willing to undo it, I think it should be reviewed at ANI. I don't think the editor will edit again in the relevant time period, and I think they should be able to participate on the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed that here, and considering that the editor clearly does not understand or admit the edit warring, I'm not sure an unblock at this point is warranted. But feel free to take it to ANI for review, that's why I mentioned it here - for review. Dreadstar ☥ 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion here. Especially since it's a BLP and he was the one -removing- information not the one readding it. Especially since it was contentious material. should be observed indeed in the case of BLPs. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed the content being edit warred over here and again here. Dreadstar ☥ 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph W. Westphal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph W. Westphal is poorly sourced and reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article.

Potential sources found:

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579184011128412586 | On ambassador appointment
• http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/ambassador-to-saudi-arabia-who-is-joseph-westphal-140427?news=853012 | General info and history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.151.27 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on a rewrite now.  NQ  talk 06:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Needs to be checked for grammar, tone and style. Left out much detail as I couldn't find secondary sources to support them.  NQ  talk 08:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I added headings to the page to improve layout and removed excessive images which made the page abnormally long and unpleasant. Meatsgains (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

My name is Michael Bérubé, and I am writing to ask for editorial intervention on my Wikipedia page. (I see that someone has already done so for the Talk page.) A glance at its revision history will show that over the past few months, it has been subject to an edit war that amounts to persistent vandalism. There are three outstanding issues that I have not been able to resolve on the Talk page, largely because of the intransigence of one or two very determined editors.

The first concerns someone’s obsession with the high school I attended. Ideally, I think, a professional encyclopedia entry for a university professor would follow the contours of a curriculum vitae (more or less), and of course I do not list my high school on my c.v. However, because one or more users insists repeatedly that my high school is of some importance, it is now on my page. The discussion of Regis High School on my Talk page suggests that this user or users is especially obsessed with the term “feeder school.” The result is that there is more information about my high school and my Class of 1978 classmates than about any other educational institution I have attended or taught at. (To give some sense of how devoted this person is to his/her description of Regis: when another editor tried to change the phrase “boxing magnate Lou DiBella” to “boxing promoter Lou DiBella,” he or she promptly reverted to “boxing magnate.” I have no idea why this person is so motivated to include this detail, using this description, about a high school classmate I have not seen in 35 years.) It’s fine with me if the place is mentioned, but the overemphasis here seems inappropriate in a BLP.

The second is a POV question; it concerns someone’s insistence on misconstruing my position on the Iraq War, and providing a broken link to the journal “Politics and Culture.” I have tried repeatedly to correct both these edits in the interest of accuracy, but another editor usually deletes my emendations within hours, and even refuses to accept edits that correct the broken link.

The final issue is a question of undue weight. Someone has become fixated on an essay I wrote in 2009 about the GRE exam. On the talk page, he or she insists that the essay is important because it reveals something about the profession of literary studies. I disagree; as I make clear in the essay, the GRE exam in English is a joke– so irrelevant to the profession of literary studies that most graduate programs in English do not require it (and some actively discourage applicants from taking it). The user who insists on including the paragraph about the GRE essay does not provide any rationale for including it on the main page. The result is that one essay (out of 200+ essays I have written on various subjects academic and nonacademic) is given a paragraph to itself– a paragraph that does nothing but broadcast my GRE scores. By contrast, major aspects of my career, including my service as president of the Modern Language Association– and essays of far more substantial relevance to academe– receive no mention at all. Again, the motivation here is unclear, though the obsessive nature of this person’s editing is all too evident.

I will attempt a small experiment with this paragraph: I will edit it today to give some sense of what that essay was actually about (though I do not think the paragraph belongs in the article at all). I predict that the edit will be reverted within 24 hours.

I know Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, collective enterprise. And I know that none of these edits amounts to slander or libel– they are merely very weird and very obsessive. But I would like to know if there is any way of protecting my main page from these inappropriate edits and persistent reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that the concerns are valid and the article needs cleanup.  NQ  talk 16:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the matters of concern regarding the high school; the material on the classmates was unsourced, the material on the quality of the school were from sources that did not mention the topic of the article and were discussing the quality of the school decades after the subject had left it. However, I'm not doing a full analysis on the other points of concern or the article as a whole; I'll leave that to other hands. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph on the GRE scores. The source was in violation of WP:BLPSPS as it was written by Mr. Michael Bérubé.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think the paragraph should be removed, but I missinterpreted and under WP:BLPSELFPUB it might be acceptable, I restored the page and I leave the issue to editors with more experience.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, everyone. But the "Regis is a prestigious feeder school" stuff is all back in (despite Nat Gertler's comments above), along with unsourced references to my classmates Patrick Fitzgerald and boxing magnate Lou DiBella. That took what, all of six hours? Like I say, we are dealing with a seriously obsessive user here. --MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and now we have other editors with their eyes on it, who can escalate things if situations warrant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Bérubé: Please avoid getting into pointless discussions with other anonymous users on the talk page, and generally also please refrain from editing your biography unless there is a serious problem with the content that requires immediate removal. Anything you wish for us to consider in terms of editing can be discussed here, where more editors with biography experience are bound to see and act on it. As they say on the internet, don't feed the trolls. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Pointless discussions have indeed been pointless. I am happy to turn this matter over to editors with biography experience. --MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.7.105 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Berube is suddenly submissive once the editors removed all his ad-hominem attacks from the talk page! Classic! What a change from the Schuman attacks (and attacks on those who point out that you're a troll!). You've found some fellow boorish chauvinists for protection! Enjoy it! It must be a big "wheeew" that that's offline... And whoever reads this, keep the mention about the high school. It's important.

Mr. Berube should also refrain from trolling his page and female bloggers.23.125.234.44 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care what subjects of biographies do, unless and until what they do is covered by multiple reliable sources. I suggest yo wait for that to come to pass, and stop inserting information that is inappropriate and lacks consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The elite high school should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.90.151 (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please. The problem with this page is that a bunch of faculty and grad students are editing it and Berube is angry about it. He wants control. I don't know why - the only contentious stuff is what he himself put on the talk page. He's dug himself a huge hole, and all of that discussion should be cut and pasted back in, in my opinion. Anyway the administrators should be much more careful with their revisions as the consensus is already clear. The high school should be described as a feeder school, elite school or some version that makes clear it places lots of grads in top universities.

Berube's opinion is a conflict of interest and irrelevant except for cases of blatant vandalism. This entire dialogue is a waste of time. The consensus about the high school is clear (which is: because he is an academic, the rank of the school is important to note).50.159.116.221 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

From the discussions here and on the talk page, it is quite clear that there is a concentrated effort to restore content that does not necessarily adhere to WP:NPOV. Since WP:BLP applies here, I recommend temporary protection, at least until concerns can be addressed.  NQ  talk 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the edits of concern are all IP SPAs (including those from the user who identifies himself as the subject of the article), semi-protection would have the intended effect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs concerning GRE and the Iraq war listed under "Publications and achievements" are nothing more than personal commentary based on opinion pieces by Berube himself. There is no coverage about it anywhere else to identify its significance. If this were a puff piece written by the author himself, we would be demanding coverage in multiple reliable sources to include it. Since there isn't any, and since there are concerns about WP:UNDUE and the use of POV language, I suggest removing it.  NQ  talk 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article is screaming for semi protection or pending changes. Frog, can you do that, or if you feel "involved" could you make the request?Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a community effort and we have administrators reverting edits that are clearly in the consensus without any explanation or comment to the existing discussion on the talk page. The edits being removed are from professors and grads students, all of whom are PhDs or will soon be PhDs, as if someone without a wikipedia account should have no voice. That's troublesome. And it's also troublesome that Berube is attempting to write his own page. The administrators have said that he should not write his page except in the case of vandalism, but their recent edits have all submitted to Berube's wishes, which are in conflict of interest and are also against the discussion on the talk page. These are serious problems that go against the mission of wikipedia. I am going to make an account (and post to facebook recommending others do the same) and renew the consensus edits as they have been nuanced and modified per the discussion on the talk page. I would expect any future edits from anyone to be discussed in the context of what is already on the talk page.50.159.116.221 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This has become an exercise in how bad wikipedia is at maintaining its own mission. All of the MB comments are conflict of interest. The administrators appear to be so in awe of his title that they are using their block tools and whatnot to go against the discussion on the talk page. The admins read like mainsplainers, too, so I guess Berube has some kin on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.137.123 (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree 50.159.116.221 and 98.218.137.123 there is no consensus, but regardless, the recent edits have been done following Wikipeda Policy. The article should be encyclopedic. Editors must contribute within those guidelines. Or can choose to use more adequate means like blogs, forums, Facebook etc to post that information or voice their concerns. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. There are 8 or 10 people who have commented against these edits, offering insight and detailed perspectives on the talk page. Those comments do not in themselves indicate a consensus but it should be recognized that many more people have weighed in against than in favor. And those people have changed their version of the text in accordance with the wishes of others already. Even more people than that have commented about this topic in recent months on the talk page. All of that discussion does not accord with the recent edits. One or two admins opinion should not override that conversation and all those opinions. Admins and Berube are not more capable of writing an encyclopedia page than the group of scholars already taken to the task, whose work has been deleted. There is no policy that says it's appropriate to remove collaborative work of many people that has come together over several months. The edits have been reshaped many times, denoting consensus shifts. This wholesale selling out to the professor's whims is sad and is not encyclopedic and it's not community-based discussion. It's top-down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.53.42 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• To all of the ip addresses This board (BLPN) is primarily for discussing and notifying other editors of issues that relate to articles about living people. Now that has occurred, please direct your concerns about the content of the article to the articles talk page, as most of the comments here are related to disputed content. This section is becoming quite large and it won't help anyone to have two conversations occurring in separate venues. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for a better understanding of what should be included in a biography. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to the "bunch of faculty and grad students" too. "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Comments like "You've found some fellow boorish chauvinists for protection! Enjoy it! It must be a big "wheeew" shows that you have a personal grudge against the subject, which should be taken elsewhere like Crystallizedcarbon said. Read WP:MEAT for our policy on coordinated campaigns off wiki.  NQ  talk 12:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those comments do not represent the discussion that has been ignored by the editors who took out all the other text. Berube has been awful in this discussion throughout and his comments, like those you just cite, should not be taken into account. That said, the present version of the article does not respect the discussion on the talk page in any way. It just capitulates to what the professor wants. It should be a community activity that takes into account others' opinions. The present page (Aug 18) doesn't do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.104.53.42 (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note I will be removing any future comment in its entirety that makes judgment values about Berube that does not have, or is likely to not have a source. For example, the comment above stating "It just capitulates to what the professor wants" is an example of bad faith.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In the article Randy Martin almost all links are dead or link to untrusted connections, therefore it is difficult to actually verify the biography or notability. Can anyone provide advice on how to correct this? Does the article need to be deleted? Scottsadventure (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In the article Randy Martin almost all links are dead or link to untrusted connections, therefore it is difficult to actually verify the biography or notability. Can anyone provide advice on how to correct this? Does the article need to be deleted? Scottsadventure (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jordan Belfort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently there's been a rash of IPs and new accounts trying to add material claiming that Belfort is Jewish, both in the body and as a cat. I've tried to keep it out, but the latest comes from an IP who won't give up. As I understand it, Belfort's parents were Jewish, and he was raised in a Jewish household. Not sure if he was raised "Jewish", but it's not particularly important either way. None of the sources demonstrate that he self-identifies as a Jew, either from a religious or a cultural perspective (that whole dichotomy drives me crazy but no matter). I don't mind if material is added about his parents or their household, although I think it has little to do with his notability, but to simply categorically say, "Belfort, who is Jewish ..." and to put in a Jewish cat is not supported.

I don't intend to fight it anymore. It's too big a pain in the ass. I can't characterize it as vandalism, so it would have to be handled as a content dispute, and I don't have time for it. The IP just templated me for edit warring, which is fine. The main thing I object to is them calling me "dude".

If someone wants to help, great. If not, the article will remain in some variant of its present state. As things go, it won't be the end of the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd seen someone template Bbb23 inaccurately with a 3RR template and traced back to this article, I've added PC protection. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, in July there were multiple issues raised about the page Alexandre Mars, notably that it did not have enough references, and that it was an orphan. These issues have now been addressed. As such, I'd like to request that the notification header at top of the page please be removed if possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbourman (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It only has one in-link (it's still almost an orphan) to a blackberry article based on an apparently unreliable reference. It still reads similar to a resume sourced to mostly subject-authored biographies like speaker bios, and user-provided industry sites. It can still be cleaned up.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerry is Japanese American, not Filipino American. I was a good friend of his in the 1970's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.177.110 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, I will make the change. Meatsgains (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I took out the nationality entirely, as I could find no source either way. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Amr Waked "Zionist occupation" does not seem to be a neutral description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.19.166 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Replaced with "Israeli". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A WP:BLP violation that needs immediate scrutiny. See this section here. The Bernis PDF is an unreliable source since it was rejected from publication and never cited by any subsequent scholars in the decades after.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Heads up, there's a controversy involving the subject of this article spreading across gaming websites, 4Chan, and Reddit, but none of it seems to be actual news in reputable outlets yet. Already editors have tried to include elements of this in the article and are repeating very serious allegations as fact on the talk page. The more eyes on this article, the better. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected by CambridgeBayWeather  NQ  talk 10:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

James Wright Foley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned, because this new article boldly declares Foley is dead. As far as I know, that hasn't been confirmed at all.

One reference we've used says, ""We have seen a video that purports to be the murder of U.S. citizen James Foley by (ISIS)," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The intelligence community is working as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity." [22]

Other news sources are carefully wording things to point out it is an alleged video of an execution.

I don't know how to resolve this though, because 95% of the article is about the execution. Changing the tenses to say "James Wright Foley (died August 2014) was is an American photojournalist ..." also seems wrong, insensitive, and just silly.

I think WP:NOTNEWS and things says we shouldn't have an article on this at all?

I just hate the fact that Wikipedia - unlike mainstream news organizations - is stating in big letters that he is dead ("This article is about a person who has recently died")

88.104.21.216 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I made this edit because of my immediate concerns, but I'd welcome more ideas on how to best deal with it. 88.104.21.216 (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Chand Narang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear sir, This is to bring to your notice that some body who is indulging to character assassinate and malign me for personal reasons is uploading obnoxious and false material in my entry in Wikipedia (under sub heading Plagiarism) to hurt my reputation and defame me. In case such malicious material is edited, by using different perhaps fake DI s he or his contacts are Reloading that material. It is requested that this may kindly be looked into and The misuse of the entry may be stopped. Thanks. Gopi Chand Narang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.148.161 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe this article meets general notability guidelines. Patrick Moran is not notable except as pertaining to his role in a vote fraud scandal in his father's campaign, which is already covered in detail in the Jim Moran article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.151.4 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the article as per WP:BLP1E. Subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag was removed, so I nominated it for deletion under BLP1E.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Two kinds of pork. Users can weigh in at the article's entry on the AfD here. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jack Evans (D.C. politician)
• User talk:Evansjack1
  

I noticed this on Wikipediocracy. Looks a bit like a hatchet-job to me. The councilman appears to have been trying to neutralise it and possibly erring on the side of puff. Does a disinterested editor with a good grasp of our BLP policy have time to help out there? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a crack at it and, while it's not something I'd offer up for GA consideration, I think it's better. I invite anyone to check my work - JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. That's much more like an encyclopedia biography now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The accusation of plagiarism made against the BLP subject Suman Sahai in the previous version of the Controversy section was later proven to be false. The University issued a letter dated 07.02.2014 confirming that no plagiarism proceedings had been initiated against her, after a case was instituted against the Dean for making false statements against the subject, which she won. Similarly, the information given regarding the venia legendi was false and has been removed. The article which made the accusation, cited as the main source of information in the previous version of the Controversy section, is patently defamatory (http://www.biotech-europe.de/editorials/726.lasso) and cites a press release by the University but the link provided does not exist as it was subsequently deleted for being false and providing incorrect information. (http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/ShowSingleNews.176.0.html? However, the post has been consistently re-edited in the past to include the same false accusations. Sleepingcow (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I was in the process of filing a note on this article myself when I noticed that Sleepingcow already did this. I would like to solicit some input of editors experienced in BLP issues to have a look at this article and its sourcing to avoid a budding edit war. Personally, I think the sourcing is impeccable and the conclusion that the accusation of plagiarism was false is based on SYNTH and unreliable sources. Laborjournal, to the best of my knowledge, has never retracted their article, which seems to be based on solid investigative journalism (i.e., they investigated the appropriate primary sources -the habilitation thesis and the review article that was plagiarized- interviewed people that were colleagues o the subject at the time, searched for other material online, and finally published their conclusions). --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can't read German, so I'm at the mercy of the machine translations. But the source referred to doesn't look like an article, but rather an opinion piece on the editorial page. I'm not sure we can assume the fact checking is as rigorous as it would be for an article. I tend to suspect the allegation is true because I don't see a denial, and academics are quite sensitive to this allegation, but I'm not confident we have BLP worthy sourcing for this assertion. Has anyone else anywhere noted the supposed plagiarism? If not, we probably should remove the allegation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Laborjournal is a respected publication. It has an English version, Lab Times (but not all articles are identical between the two versions, this one only appeared in the German one because of the local interest, I guess). Retraction Watch has a column in the English version. After posting this yesterday, I sent an email to Labjournal asking whether their article had been retracted. They responded within an hour and told me that the subject's lawyer had contacted them lat year but in the end did not undertake any legal action, which is telling. I know that this is not useful as a source in our article, but the fact that Laborjournal stands to their story and hasn't retracted tells me that the allegations are basically proven. (After all, plagiarism is much easier to detect than other forms of scientific fraud, such as "inventing" data, because all one needs is to compare the two versions). As for the question whether this was an article or an editorial: the layout here is their web layout. A German friend of mine who gets the journal in hard copy sent me a PDF and it definitely looks like an article and most certainly is not an editorial. It's too bad really that this journal doesn't publish their PDFs online... BTW, for those not able to read German, a good translation in English is available and linked to in our article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Content verified by multiple reliable sources, thus not following under WP:GRAPEVINE, was removed by another editor in this edit. The removing editor argued that the single neutrally worded sentence falls under WP:UNDUE. As for the claim that there is a consensus I responded here, as there has been no quality arguement as to why the content should be excluded. Furthermore the content is not about the 2012 arrest of the subject of the article, but about the 2011 revocation of the subject of that article's driver's license.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Can this topic please receive additional eyes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellapragada Sudharashan Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have created a new BLP page for Yellapragada Sudharshan Rao at [23]. Can you please take a look at my wording and the sources cited in there to see if my version is acceptable? User:AmritasyaPutra has raised various objections to my wording, which seem extreme to me, but I will be glad to have your input. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Link to article talk page discussion: Talk:Yellapragada_Sudharashan_Rao. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of work. I'll leave other users to hash out the use of "controversial" and "right winners" on the talk page. I made some minor cleanup edits and removed some rather irrelevant information. Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Meatsgains, If I may request: please keep it on your watch-list also. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Already added to my watch list. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, thanks for your cleanup effort; however, I noticed you removed Thapar's criticism without explanation. I've reinserted it for now, because it has been sourced, and it isn't making a claim such that BLP would require blanking. If you see any issues with it, please bring them up. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I removed the criticism is because it does not in anyway improve the article and seems a bit out of place. Is it necessary to add that none of his popular articles "appeared in a peer-reviewed journal"? Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly asking, is canvassing applicable? link: diff. A simple yes or no is sufficient, please don't get outraged for nothing, that is not the intent. I could foresee these edits that is why I am asking. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Vanamonde93 could have certainly phrased her post a little different to avoid accusations of canvassing. IMO, this is indeed canvassing as she explicitly stated, "I need your help". Meatsgains (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, that post was on my talk page, by Uday Reddy, I could hardly have phrased something differently. Also, I just lectured AmritasyaPutra about not making gender assumptions; use they/them, makes life so much easier. Finally, you might be able to apply accusations of canvassing if you were being literal; but I had already been involved at the closely related debate here. Reddy was merely making me aware of a related discussion, so "canvassing" is off the mark (though I concede they could have phrased it otherwise). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thinking... mmmm... Reddy could do that himself, no? --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: My apologies on two accounts: 1.) For saying you participated in the "canvassing" when it was instead posted on your talk page and 2.) for making gender assumptions. :) Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, apology duly accepted, and thanks for being so gracious about it. Let's get back to the page now; personally, I do not believe BLP concerns are serious enough at this point to keep going here; shall we discuss this on the talk? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:, Aren't you raising a strawman when the canvassing page that you have pointed to explicitly says that that kind of invitation is perfectly fine? You anticipated that I would do it, because I have previously extended similar invitations to yourself? I don't recall you raising any objections about it then! Uday Reddy (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue ended up here on BLP Noticeboard because User:AmritasyaPutra explicitly requested it, and that seemed to be the only avoid a protracted edit war. The basic problem we have is that User:AmritasyaPutra insists that we should use exactly the same words as in the sources. In this case, he made up the additional argument that otherwise it would be a BLP violation. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Arrrgggghhh, assume some good faith? I made my comment as humbly and explicitly as it could be. I anticipated the reverts not the invite. This issue came here because of this discussion where you were told to go to BLP noticeboard by two other editors, which you were merely re-hasing on this new page. Your assertion is plain misleading. Also, I have never re-played your edits! --AmritasyaPutra✍ 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:, "good faith" and "humility" are hard to see when they come in the midst of an edit war. Your modus operandi whenever you see something you don't like is to first change the words (and the meaning) to your taste, and then expect us to open a dialogue on the talk page. It is kind of like slapping someone in the face and then asking them to negotiate so that you don't slap them again. You have done this repeatedly both User:Vanamonde93 and me over the last couple of days. Calling this "humility" is the height of irony! Uday Reddy (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black.. See this thread again for yourself. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Posting articles containing information on an ongoing police investigation and riot is inappropriate. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia. It is often misused for posting Current Events and Opinion. Please remove any "Michael Brown" articles until the case has been adjudicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bings (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This needs a clearer consensus from other experienced editors, as it keeps getting re-inserted.

Can the following text be added to Song Zuying?

It has long been rumoured in China that Song was romantically involved with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, 40 years her senior, and owed much of her career to support from him. Song and Jiang were married to other people at the time of the alleged affair. Song later divorced her husband. Song and Jiang were introduced to each other by Vice-Admiral Wang Shouye, who is currently serving a life-sentence for corruption.

Is this material BLP-compliant? All sources admit it is popularly-held but unproven rumor regarding a BLP subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumours are clearly BLP violations.--ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the material in question.

I also am opposed to including this material. It's not a simple issue though. Some of the sources used are ridiculous -- the Daily Mail for chrissakes -- and some are not. One is the New Yorker, albeit a New Yorker blog, one is the LA Times. There is a book, "Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China". The South China Morning Post is invoked. The Association for Asian Research I am highly skeptical about though, and the Daily Mail is out of course.

These sources, and our article, do not state an opinion on whether or not Song Zuying had a long-term affair with Chinese leader Jiang Zemin, but rather assert that many people believed, falsely or not, that she did. If this explains in part her career trajectory that's germane. "enduring rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin" says the New Yorker blog, without exactly specifying what their relationship was.

It's a tough question. "Unsubstantiated rumours", IF they reach a notable enough level AND there are sufficient reliable sources to show that, might belong. For instance, there was an unsubstantiated rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Completely unsubstantiated, but I bet it's described here on the Wikipedia.

Still, all things considered, I would say the material should be redacted. It's hard to know what the situation is in China, because it is far away and uses a difficult language and has censorship. It might be that this is of an Obama-born-in-Kenya level of notability there. But I don't have hard evidence of that. So: it's contentious, it's contended by some editors, and the sources are not sufficient for inflammatory material. In cases like that our policy bends strongly toward not including the material. Let's not. Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this material was removed from Jiang Zemin long ago. If it wasn't considered sufficiently BLP compliant for his article, with greater editor participation, then I can't see how it would be compliant for hers.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that people were arrested due to reporting these rumours, and that her name is a blocked term in China due to these rumours is a substantiated fact - is this not allowable content, relevent to her biography? FOARP (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be. But look who was arrested: a retired army officer who is "known for revealing scandals about high-ranking Chinese officials over the Internet" and who is quoted as saying Jiang Zemin is "as fake as counterfeit money on the market". Sounds like a disgruntled blogger to me, and, this being China, it'd be odd if he wasn't arrested, saying stuff like that. Hell, they arrested Roger Shuler for this stuff here in the USA (well, Alabama anyway). The source for this is the Association for Asian Research, some kind of entity based at "Suite 407" on 8th Avenue and not a newspaper and I'm skeptical of their fact-checking operation. As to blocking search terms, OK, but China blocks search terms all the time (I think) so I don't know either way how much that tells us.

Also, based on the sources we have and can use, the most we can say is that they are rumored to be good friends, period. Anything about who was married to whom and so forth is out, barring much better sources. Possibly something like this: It has long been rumoured in China that Song's successful career was aided by her friendship with Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. based on the New Yorker piece and so on. Maybe. I'm am opposed to even this though. None of these sources are AAA-level reliability and that's what we need for contentious material about a living person. In addition to which I don't know how notable -- widespread -- this rumor was. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

An academic source ells us the blocking is related to the rumours. As for how wide-spread the rumour is, well, pretty much every source that discusses her other than government-controlled ones mentions it. FOARP (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about this. It came to my attention after an ISP (possibly the same person as Fagash123, who had added (and had removed) the same information previously) tried adding Richard Whitehead to both Richard Whitehead's disambiguation page and to List of fashion designers, and I found this page on user space while casually trying to verify if there was such a designer. Normally, I would leave this bio to be deleted automatically due to lack of sources and notability as soon as it was moved to mainspace, but there's some really quite personal information in there, and the URL cited goes to a page about gastric bypass surgery loaded with expicit photographs showing surplus skin - so I think despite initial autobiographical appearances, this page is actually intended as a personal attack on Richard Whitehead. The only source that mentions him indicates that he is a student, so certainly nowhere near notable enough yet for an article - but all the personal stuff and the rather disturbing content on the alleged personal website makes me think personal attack. I doubt that a legitimate fashion designer, aspiring or otherwise, would have a site like that. But I'm not sure so I would really appreciate a second opinion as I'm a bit bothered by this. Mabalu (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• John Kline (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a minor edit war (mentioned at ANI) over the wording in a "worst members of Congress" mention. I removed the entire mention, which was

Kline's 2014 campaign has received national attention since Kline was nominated as one of the US's worst members of Congress on the HBO showReal Time with Bill Maher.[24][25] Maher seeks to unseat a sitting U.S. Representative and takes nominations by Facebook, Instagram and/or Twitter.[26]

It seems to me that Wikipedia should not be used to amplify political attacks. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal. A segment on a satirical show.  NQ  talk 09:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Satire and sarcasm != actual fact. And the use of Wikipedia for political purposes including campaigning for or against any person or group is, IMHO, evil. Collect (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please, may I semi-protect this for a few days? Bearian (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely -- as well as any others where campaigners think Wikipedia is a substitute for advertising. Collect (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree to allow a mention of Real Time is they select Kline as their "winner" and the show spends substantial money in the district influencing the outcome race? At that point, is a historical component of the election. This is a huge event in the district which has never received national attention. It would be no different than discussing other substantial propaganda campaigns in history. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq,User:NQ,User:Collect, it appears that this content has been restored by the same editor. I'm reluctant to engage myself, since I've already attempted to deal with this content once, and have been engaged with the same editor in a dispute over other content on the same article.CFredkin (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of worst member of congress is what is critical here. When a national show engages in a minor race, it has major impact. It is substantial news and atypical of campaigns. We can take suggestions on how to word this so the crux of the information is about the nomination rather than the opinionated designation but satire or not, the intention of the show (which has millions of viewers) is to influence the election. Kline's campaign has directly addressed the attack in papers which is notable. Kline's opposition is also engaged in a coordinated effort to utilize the media attention. We can't simply neglect the show's campaign because it is satire (although it is also a news forum) if it has potential to influence the race, which it does. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The FlipADistrict web site doesn't say anything about "worst member of congress".CFredkin (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the episode's in question will reveal the wording that the show used to describe the candidates but I agree, this is mostly irrelevant and what is interesting that "flip a district" has the intention to change a district from Republican to Democratic based on social media nominations. Mismolly0 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not unusual for wiki bios (including politicians) to contain information about an individual's appearance or being featured on a news or satire show. What is important is to make sure that the information featured is FACTUAL. I support including the information about Maher's #FlipADistrict if we can find a way to make it as factual as possible. That means including the date of the episodes, a link to the relevant video, etc. Hlodynn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be a good idea if the material is added at Bill Maher. The satire/attack is something done by Maher, so it may be useful as an illustration of Maher's work. However, an attack is not placed on a target's biography just because someone made the attack. If anyone knows of another BLP which contains attacks on the subject please post a link so we can fix them. Given that anyone can edit (even SPAs), information at a BLP has to do more than be verified—it has to satisfy WP:DUE. If the "national attention" is notable, write an article on the topic. Otherwise, the text belongs on a blog. If something happens as a result of the attack (for example, if someone resigns), WP:DUE would probably be satisfied. At the moment, it's just standard electioneering. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dan Savage's "santorum" dysphemism still lurks in the Rick Santorum BLP Rick_santorum#Pornography - which is pretty much worse than this - but was staunchly defended by some people who may have had a campaign interest there as well. I suspect other examples exist. Collect (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sanjay Gupta (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His page reads like a CV and is not verifiable. It seems to be written by him, a quick check on the edits of the page reveals that he himself has written this. A quick search on google reveals that this guy is: 1) Deceiving people by taking money from investors in the form of fixed deposits and then not returning it 2) Cheating the Government of India by having illegal assets 3) Removed from the Gujarath Government for Corruption.

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/hc-slaps-rs-125cr-tax-bill-on-exias-officer/759258/ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-03-06/news/37500300_1_ifci-industrial-finance-corporation-metro-rail-project http://www.complaintsaboutbusiness.in/tag/neesa-leisure/

Maybe a better idea would be to create a wikipedia page that would display information about such corrupt people :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.153.249 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The user User:Int21h has twice removed my inclusion of the template 'BLP sources' from the page Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This article makes reference, in the 'Opposition' section, to a lawsuit currently before the Canadian courts filed by two living persons, Ginny Hillis and Gwen Deegan. It further claims that these two women have obligations to the United States government. As these two women, in fact, dispute such a claim, a reference should be provided, or the assertion that they have obligations to the United States government should be deleted. After noting this here, I intend to reinsert the 'BLP sources' template on Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and respectfully ask that User:Int21h not delete it again until it has been appropriately arbitrated.Dash77 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed solution

This debate over 'BLP sources' appears to me to be a moot point; most readers would be hard-put to explain the relevance of any BLP sources to this article. However, a consensus solution obviating further debate might be simply to revise this phrase:

• "would not relieve them of their responsibilities to the United States under FATCA"

to read instead

• "would not relieve them of any responsibilities to the United States under FATCA."

Then I would advocate removing the template 'BLP sources'. Seniorexpat (talk) 21 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the names of the non-notable living persons. Collect (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Hundred-Foot Journey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is currently linked to Amit Shah, the actor, in the The Hundred-Foot Journey. I do not think that they can be the same person. The link to the film needs to be removed and a new page for the actor Amit Shah created since they are two different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.246.44 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Partly done Removed link that pointed to an Indian politician.  NQ  talk 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

James Buckley (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been getting repeated additions of unsourced children's names to the infobox (I've been removing these as per WP:BLPNAME but they just get re-added). It does appear that these may be sourceable, but even so is it appropriate to include them? January (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not appropriate per WP:BLPNAME, even if sourced/sourceable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

The subject of the biography has posted a detailed message at Talk:Charles Shoebridge citing violation of BLP policies. There are various concerns to be addressed. Need more eyes on the article.  NQ  talk 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he is notable. AfD might be the way forward here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)