Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive178

Teresa King

Article Teresa King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently the subject of an edit war surrounding the inclusion/exclusion of information solely sourced through http://www.militarycorruption.com/csmteresaking.htm . Also at issue is the inclusion of information regarding Teresa King's lack of deployment history as a feature of her career section, rather than the controversy associated with her departure from the Army Drill Sgt. School.

The sections concerning militarycorruption.com are in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons guidelines, specifically those concerning reliable sourcing, inline citation, heavy reliance on rumor, and tabloid journalism. The source page lists nothing but MC's own "confidential informants on every U.S. military installation here and overseas" as primary sources. As the type of investigation carried out in the run-up to and following King's departure from the Drill Sgt. School was for internal Army use only and details have not otherwise come out through the press, the inclusion of such material violates Wikipedia's tenet of verifiability.

Further, while King's deployment history was the subject of controversy, one of the reverting editors continues to draft this information as a component of King's career history rather than in the controversy section and refuses to include lines specifying that this was a line of attack used by critics. The reverting editor also has refused to permit additions including a quotation of King's response to the critique (properly sourced) or contextual information regarding the overall rate of deployment Army-wide. This violates Wikipedia's balance policy.

72.187.114.60 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything negative about a living person sourced solely to a personal blog such as "MilitaryCorruption.com" is a flagrant violation of any number of policies, not least of which are WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. I've removed it all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Eric Grimson

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

Editor keeps adding material suggesting that involvement in someone else's suicide and that a third person did not perform a reasonable investigation. The cited sources are blogs/wikis, so it seems to be a BLP violation about both persons. An second editor (Silvrous) reverted the first addition of this material a few days ago and put a comment on the editor's talk page (since deleted). I've reverted the material twice today for BLP and left 3RR/BLP warnings. The questionable material has been restored a third time, and the editor has now templated me for 3rr. The talk page should also be vetted. Glrx (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Glrx is incorrect in his background documentation: The material that was removed by User:Silvrous is not the same as the one that was added later on. The material pertaining to Aaron Swartz and Eric Grimson are well known and documented. And I have supplied an additional references that documents Eric Grimson's involvement. This is a NYtimes article. Note, that as Chancellor of the university, he is responsible for leading these high profile negotiations with law enforcement authorities. this is public knowledge, just like Grimson's and Abelon's long time friendship is. There's nothing to dispute here.Tumbultaaron (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, Tumbultaaron's edits violate WP:BLP through their non-neutral tone, it is clearly skewed against the subject of this article. Also, the provided references only tangentially refer to Grimson, making this seem like original research on his part. The controversy can, of course, be mentioned, but in a neutral tone, using a language that properly expresses that this is the opinion that some hold, not a fact. Silvrous ^Talk 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are legitimate concerns that have been raised about Grimson who appears to be at the center of later controversy involving MIT's decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz. As Chancellor of the Institute it is apparent that Grimson is the person responsible for handling upper level correspondence with the Secret Service and the FBI along with other law enforcement agencies. It is believed that he initially authorized green light over the investigation even after JSTOR dropped the case. It is noteworthy that the key investigator for the Aaron Swartz case, Hal Abelson is a long time colleague and friend of Grimson, as a result, it is believed that the results of the investigation were highly skewed so as to protect Grimson and higher ranks.Tumbultaaron (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources for these alleged "legitimate concerns," nor have you provided any evidence that these "legitimate concerns" are in any way encyclopedic. The primary "source" you provided for these "concerns" is a comment on a personal blog, which is entirely inappropriate per verifiability and reliable sources policies.

You have made a number of accusations and assertions above, none of which have you substantiated. Your unsubstantiated claims have no place in a Wikipedia biography. Either you support them with reliable sources, or they stay out of his biography. If you continue to insert poorly-sourced negative material in a biography, you may be banned from editing biographies or blocked from Wikipedia entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a bunch of synthesis and original research. And I speak for no one other than me but quite frankly this witch hunt related to Swartz' suicide is getting rather old. Come back when you have a reliable source that clearly and unequivocally involves this person in that sad affair. Cobbling together rumors from blogs is not going to cut it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck in the synthesis and original research. From a psychology major's perspective, you might be interested in http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence. <personal attacks redacted> No wonder this uni is headed downhill. Macgovern1 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I redacted a section from the above post which contained personal attacks on the article subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Those were not meant as personal attacks. This is jargon used in my field of psychology. Would be nice if you allowed the link to responsibilities of chancellor though since it ain't referring to anything but responsibilities. Macgovern1 (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

La Toya Jackson

Somebody please have a look at the recent history and its edit war. I have fully protected for 24 hours since I believe the information to be a BLP violation and I'm about to sign off here. The prompt was a thread on WP:AN, "IP vandalism", where I gave a detail or two. Sorry, but it's late. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Some material is still in Omarosa Manigault and doesn't match the source. The source just just says a legal team is involved. Nothing about filing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Álvaro Colom

I am concerned that this article about a world leader, the previous president of Guatemala, is a major BLP issue because of the weight given to a single controversy. The "Rodrigo Rosenberg" section of the biography is entirely about one incident in which Colom was accused of orchestrating a murder but later exonerated in the media. It seems very inappropriate that half of the content of his biography—and the entire coverage of his presidency, since there is no other content about that period—consists of a very detailed recounting of this event, as if that is the main source of his notability. I think it is a case of Wikipedia reporting on a salacious news event as it was happening, but not ever going back to put it in proper perspective once the excitement passed. I thought I would post here in the hopes that someone could take a look and hopefully do some fixing. Thanks! Dominic·t 01:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. The section was entirely inappropriate (per due weight and WP:BLP), including its point-of-view phrasing. I have removed it entirely, until it can be re-written properly.

Would you be able to put in a brief neutral overview of the controversy, using some of the sources in the section that has now been removed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford -Inclusion of non-available video indications that the mayor smoked crack cocaine. The "news" about this only came out 5 days ago.

I have moved the content of this thread to Rob Ford [1] thread below for ease of access by interested editors. Hopefully this is acceptable, if not any administrator should feel free to move it back. May122013 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Alex Prud'homme bio

• Alex Prud'homme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Administrators - I write you in a state of frustration: someone keeps posting untrue, harmful material about me on my Wikipedia bio [[2]], and I'd like to put a stop to it.

Two years ago I was unjustly accused of plagiarism. My accuser spread rumors about me on the Internet, Amazon book page, etc. This attack was apparently motivated by personal antipathy and jealousy (as my accuser admitted in print). The attack was posted by a small online journal, as no established publication would publish it; there was a short-lived feedback loop, largely due to my affiliation with a celebrity, Julia Child (who had nothing to do with the accusations). AtlanticWired wrote a story about the non-controversy, absolving me. End of story, or so I thought.

A year ago someone posted a note about this "scandal" on my Wikipedia page. I didn't know it had been posted, and as a result I was embarrassed and lost freelance work; I deleted it. Now someone has reposted it, and I have again deleted it. This is a recurring problem with real consequences. My family, readers and employers read Wikipedia. It is irresponsible to recycle such untrue and irrelevant nonsense. I did not choose to have a Wikipedia page, but since it exists please ensure that it is not used to attack my integrity.

This posting violates Wikipedia's policies:

From the Biographies of Living Persons page: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. ... Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

From Avoid gossip and feedback loops: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asp624 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The addition included your rebuttal to the claims, and the coverage is sufficient enough, by reliable sources. This isn't a BLP problem - it's not gossip, and it's not poorly sourced. Granted, we can find better ways to word that, but I don't see that its addition was violating any part of BLP other than maybe WP:UNDUE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Note For reference, this article covers the issue fairly well from both sides. It even includes sources at the bottom. I will let other editors weigh in. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I added the following note to the user talk page:

I've revised the article to give less prominence to the material you object to. But I - and other editors - don't see any reason to remove it entirely. WP:BLP requires that contentious material be properly sourced, which is the case here, and that any material not be given undue weight. Wikipedia does not, however, remove material simply because it causes problems to an individual, nor because of the motivation of the person(s) adding the material to Wikipedia articles.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME should apply in this case since the individual concerned is relatively unknown. Moreover, the source "Los Angeles Review of Books" page linked to, is a commentary by the person making the accusations and cannot be considered a reliable, secondary source. The other source is the "Spatwatch" section of the Atlantic Wire that is merely repeating and quoting the accusations made, and the rebuttals that the subject of the article has purportedly made. The "Spatwatch" section is a questionable source at best, which is simply reiterating what the accuser said in a public forum without any due diligence or fact-checking. I have removed the paragraph in question and would recommend that this be discussed thoroughly on BLPN prior to re-introduction, if there is consensus for it. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following, at all, the statement that "Spatwatch" is a "questionable source at best". The Wikipedia article that mentions the Atlantic Wire (see The Atlantic#The Atlantic Wire) certainly has no information that would lead to questions about reliability. The website for the Atlantic Wire says "... we do more than just collect information. By synthesizing, analyzing and summarizing what’s out there, and adding new information when we can ... I'm particularly surprised at the implication that this source might have simply made up quotations from Prud'homme ("rebuttals that the subject of the article has purportedly made"); if that were true, why wouldn't Prud'homme have simply attacked the source as being unacceptable? Is there some specific reason to doubt that Prud'homme said what he was quoted as saying? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Atlantic Wire is an excellent source for this sort of issue. It is of course a secondary source in this context, so that we're not in BLPPRIMARY territory. The analysis in that source (in particular, the boxes showing some of the passages in question and their similarity) make it clear why Green felt aggrieved and also make it difficult to accept the claim that the accusation of plagiarism was simply untrue; I also disagree with the notion that the AtlanticWire story "absolved" Prud'homme here. I share John Broughton's puzzlement about the idea of "purportedly" in connection with Prud'homme's words -- I see no reason to doubt that he said what he is reported to have said. The main issue for me here is WP:UNDUE; the BLP in question is rather short, so that even a brief passage carries a lot of weight. In the end I won't object if it ends up not being included -- but I don't think it can be excluded on grounds of being a BLP violation in a more fundamental sense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Purported birth name of porn actor and allegation of felony in foreign language source whose reliability is not obvious

IP editor posts material in question: [3] I revert: [4] I explain on talk page [5] IP reposts material in question as external link: [6] IP posts to talk page: [7]

What next? David in DC (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit about cz:iDNES.cz. May generally be an RS, but I have no idea if we're looking at an associated blog, etc. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

At least based on a quick look and Google Translate, it doesn't appear to be a blog - appears to be a sourced report published by the news organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If as the IP says "there are many articles in English" then let them provide one, from a reliable source. For something like this I'd be weary of relying on a Czech source. Also, even if there is an English source, that's WP:UNDUE by far, considering the size of the article. Plus we sure as heck don't put it in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRangeFrog (talk • contribs)

Why would you be wary of a Czech source? The reliable sources policy doesn't require that sources be in English. I would agree it wouldn't belong in the lede unless he's convicted but the allegations are probably noteworthy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be if it was being used to claim how tall the guy is, but we're talking about a serious allegation. Do we know how significant the event is? Did it receive wide coverage in national media over there? Did it affect his career? We're not writing a tabloid here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not writing a tabloid, but we don't ignore verifiable convictions for serious crimes, either. If that doesn't belong in his biography, then I would suggest that he really should not have a biography here at all, because there isn't anything verifiable about him, is there? Also, it's pretty much relevant to his career because... it's gonna end his career for the next 5-10 years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is We? --Onorem (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question - ask FreeRangeFrog, he's the one used the royal we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sources in English documenting Van Damme/Kovarik's arrest and extradition. The only two that got through the spamfilter (warning, may be NSFW):

Adult Video News - which is as close to a reliable source as we might get in this genre.'

Adult FYI - another sort-of-reliable source.

Also a bunch were blocked by the spamfilter.

It does appear to be verifiable that he was convicted, and the iDNES report is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. But I note that the IP's allegations concerned theft, while the stories you have are related to domestic violence, assault and immigration issues. We cannot assume that he was convicted of theft in the Czech Republic because he was deported from the US on assault charges. So we still need a reliable source for the IPs claims - preferably an English one. I can read and make judgements about sources and claims in various languages, but Czech is not one of them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are more recent sources directly addressing the theft conviction, but they're blocked by the spamfilter. You'd have to Google them yourself, but preferably not at work... cuz, yeah, porno everywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that they are blocked by the spam filter is a pretty good indication that they are not reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that would deem them appropriate to verify a controversial claim about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree, but when you're dealing with someone who is famous primarily for being a star of pornographic films, pretty much all the coverage that's anywhere near "reliable" is going to be from porn-news sites that often end up blacklisted because people try to spam them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I would delete the entire article as unverifiable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Pavel Vozenilek, a longstanding, registered editor from the Czech Republic has inserted a couple more references to a second Czech-language newspaper from the city of Prostejov, including an article which refers to this person as one of the area's 10 most-wanted criminals. I have no opinion on the editorial issues of prominence and whatnot, but I believe the conviction is sufficiently verified to not be a BLP issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've edited Vozenilek's prose because it doid not necessarily read as if written by a native English speaker. I didn't delete as BLP-violation because there seems to be some indication here that my BLP concerns are overblown. I'm uncomfortable about leaving this material up in an article about a living person, but a whole range of BLP-savvy editors here have not been moved to blanket delete and I really don't know better than they. I've also been told, on the article talk page that my earlier revert was stupid. I'm going to ask y'all to decide if more needs editing or reverting. I just don't feel competent here and have recently had an unrelated experience on-wiki that's made me more timid. I'm going to go back and delete one more item, that seems important under BLP until consensus is reached here. Then I'm going to back off. David in DC (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They're not overblown, because that just turned into an almost wholly negative WP:BLP1E. Anyone up for AFD? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support an AFD per BLP1E and general non-notability. The sum total of coverage of this guy amounts to a couple "he's a porn star" pieces and then the "he's a criminal" pieces. Sounds like a delete to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problematic material has been re-inserted, complete with its idiosyncratick spelling and grammar. The reinserter is described above as a long-standing, registered editor from the Czech Republic. He's no doubt acting in good faith. I'm going to revert and invite the editor here. Assistance in getting this thing resolved, whether by AfD or some other means, will be appreciated. David in DC (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I just AfD'd it. If we're going to have an article on him, frankly, the material belongs in there - it's reliably-sourced and probably the biggest/most notable thing about his life. But I don't believe we should have an article on him, because BLP1E and GNG. There's no way to write a balanced biography of him. It amounts to "He was in a porno movie or two" and "he was convicted of armed robbery." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Antonia Juhasz

According to the edit history, the main part of the current version of Antonia Juhasz is written by Antonia Juhasz (talk · contribs). The added/replaced text has no references. Although these edits were made at last year and earlier, it come into attention only recently. The article was tagged with {{BLP sources}} and certain facts such as being on the national advisory committee of Iraq Veterans Against the War, being Investigative Journalism Fellow at the Investigative Reporting Program at Berkeley, or working as a legislative assistant for two U.S. members of Congress, were marked with {{citation needed}} tags. These tags were reverted by edit summaries "removing drive-by tagging of successive paragraphs of non-controversial information. Two reasons: first we have a "BLP references" tag a the top of the article, so its redundant; secondly, tags inappropriate as prompted by a BP rep at Talk:BP", "per WP:OVERTAGGING and the fact that the catalyst was a BP corporate rep at Talk:BP", and "There is no good reason for all these tags--please see my note on talk page". The main argument at the talk page was that this is "non-controversial" and "routine information" and therefore exempted from tagging. In addition, an editor expressed a view that "We are all here because of completely unnecessary, gratuitous reference to this article by an employee of BP in Talk:BP. We need to bend over backwards not to allow corporations from influencing BLPs of their critics in this manner." However, as I explained above, facts about working for "Iraq Veterans Against the War" or members of Congress are that kind of facts which by my understanding need sources and therefore tags were addded. In addition, although the text seems non-controversial, it was added by the subject of the article (at least, it may be said so by the editor's user name and edit pattern) without vetting by independent editors. Therefore, attribution of the text with reliable sources is the best way to eliminate any doubts that there are COI issues with the article. In addition, as the issue is about implementing WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, it is irrelevant who mentioned first the fact that the subject of this article has edited it herself. This issue has been discussed at the article's talk page but unfortunately without any consensus. Therefore guidelines regarding references are needed. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this situation really warrants listing here, as this noticeboard is generally for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." That's not happening here; but to the extent there is a BLP issue, it is Beagel adding "citation needed" tags at the end of nearly every paragraph [8], containing not puffery or wild claims but routine biographical information. This overtagging is disruptive and unnecessary, as there is a tag at the top indicating that more references are needed for verification. BP's involvement - a BP employee made a gratuitous, hostile reference to this article on the BP talk page [9] - is a troubling side issue. It bothers me that a corporation involved in an RL dispute with this person has sparked this overtagging. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded that this is not really a BLPN issue. The article is overwritten, undersourced and has some sections that need to be "depuffed," so to speak - they read too much like a press kit - but there are no negative, defamatory statements on the page that demand immediate removal and time should be allowed for sources to be found and for the writing to be improved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NBSB, the article does need some work, but there was no reason to put ten citation needed tags throughout the article in addition to the tag at the top and a talk page note. It is not my impression that this bio was meant to pull a fast one on WP readers with stuff Antonia Juhasz just made up, but rather a lack of her understanding of how things work around here. To smack ten warnings into the article does give a reader the impression that something fishy must be going on here, when it was most likely just an honest mistake by a new editor about how to go about tending one's own WP article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about this recent edit to the talk page:[10]. The notice makes sense for the first user, who has the same name as the subject of the article, but I don't think it should name the other two without an admission of connection or a sockpuppet investigation. I've removed the second and third users. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverted re the "connected contributors."[11] I'd like other editors to take a look at that. This kind of "mark of Cain" appearing at the top of a BLP's talk page does raise BLP issues, as in this case it insinuates sockpuppeting by the subject of the article. I'll admit that the contribs do point to a connection with the subject. However, I'm not sure that we can make that determination ourselves just on the basis of contributions. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I improved the referencing somewhat and tweaked the text in a few places, to match the sources I found. The biography is free of major problems now, and I have removed the tag asking for more sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Editors are including references to a 90 second section of a video which allegedly shows the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, smoking crack. The mayor has denied that the event happened and the event is clearly contentious. The existence of the video was first reported by Gawker. The video is not available to be verified and may never be avaiolable. This seems to me to be at this point well below standards for inclusion in a BLP as I interpret the BLP policy. The "news" just came out about this video 5 days ago so our policy about not being in a rush to include salacious news items, but the main thing is, the video itself is not available righht now to any reliable source and never has been. I have removed the sections of the BLP related to this juicy news item but other Editors keep reinserting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs)

The video is a primary source, and if editors here wanted to use it as a source then many people would object on grounds of WP:BLPPRIMARY. What matters are the quality of the secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Last I looked, the material is being left in the article while it is being discussed. This is very wrong. Remove the material and then discuss inclusion on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lock the article at the same time.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to lock it. I will keep removing it and claiming 3RR exemption until consenus is reached. They shouldn't be able to make the same claim for inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't commented as to why this is 'very wrong'. And why are you not discussing it on the talk page? This process seems to be aimed at suppressing the inclusion of the information on this event without a -good explanation- as to why. Please quote policy. Simply suppressing a section without any basis in policy - in other words - without a citation/shortcut to policy - seems very un-Wikipedia like.Alaney2k (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The video itself, which, at this point, remains at large, is a primary source. Three reporters, from two different publications, have reported on the video -- their reports are secondary sources. One of the surprising things about the third party reporting on the video is that the story has been picked up around the world.

The third party reporting is quite varied, and ties Ford's gaffes to other issues. The third party reporting is remarkable because, as many of the commentators point out, very few events in Canada make world-wide news. My favourite is this article from Slate magazine, the corrupt and incompetent mayor of The Simpsons Springfield.

• Justin Peters (2013-05-17). "Who Said It: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford or Simpsons Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby?". Slate magazine. Archived from the original on 2013-05-21. Retrieved 2013-05-21. In fact, the public servant Ford most closely resembles is the fictional mayor from The Simpsons, Diamond Joe Quimby. Both men are heavyset. Both are often at odds with constituents, colleagues, and the press. And both are prone to saying outrageous things in public.

As I write this all coverage of the reporting on the cocaine video has been removed from the article.

I added a paragraph to the Quimby article, summarizing the Slate article's comparison of the gaffes of the fictional Quimby and the real-life Ford.

With regard to BLP and the references for the world-wide coverage of the controversy -- is someone really asserting the references are examples references likely to be challenged?

The BLP section on avoiding gossip says "...whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I suggest that when obituaries of Ford are published this controversy will have a very prominent place -- possibly in the lead paragraph.

Do WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, require all articles to present their subjects in a positive light? Fair and accurate reporting on some individuals can appear to be negative and unfair, at first glance, when one hasn't looked into the references in sufficient detail to recognize the individual's genuine record. Some commentators have suggested the article doen's cover Ford's successes in sufficient detail. During his term as mayor Ford has failed to acheive most of the planks on his platform.

The BLP section on privacy and public figures says: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative..."

The BLP section on protecting the privacy of those accused of crimes -- it seems to me the suggestion allegations of crimes not be reported only applies to individuals who aren't public figures. Geo Swan (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Using the video itself as a source to a statement that 'ford smokes crack' would be using a primary source. Including info from secondary sources (Gawker etc) that there is a video of him (alledgedly) smoking crack would be fine if it passes Undue and the secondary sources are reliable. As it is, its now been reported in multiple places by organisations that would easily pass at RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think this discussion was already taking place on the Talk page. This is the second time an editor has taken it upon themselves to remove the item based on their own opinion. But if you look at the discussion, I believe consensus there was for the content to stay. We should take that into account here. What -was- in the article was the reporting of a serious of events. Whether the video exists or not, we have the unprecedented step of crowd funding for a news item. Two news organizations reported being shopped the video. This is not some trivial "he said, she said" dispute. This is a notable event of a sitting mayor having to deal with serious allegations. The history of the mayor has led many to believe that it is possible/likely that the mayor has in fact, smoked crack. But we are not the justice system. We include the previous history and the current to allow the reader to judge. Is it possible in this case? Yes. A reasonable reader can discern from all of the content on that page. I've worked to carefully write the item in question to stay with the facts only. It's a non-trivial allegation and it is notable. Leaving it out is a dis-service to readers. We do have articles on current events. I worked on one extensively, the Yaroslavl plane crash. You stay with the reports and leave out conjecture. You can include reports that are not verified if you make it clear it is only a report. Everything becomes 100% clear finally, but until then, we should be inclusive, but careful. I think we should stay with that course. And I believe we were doing so. Alaney2k (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • The Yaroslav plane crash is not a BLP ; this is 1 of the problems with the inclusion of the crack cocaine news at this time, imo; some of the dedicated editors at Rob Ford are not treating the article as a BLP but rather as if it is a regular, non BLP, article. At least that's the way it appears to me. May122013 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• The allegation has become gigantic and in itself not a BLP issue as it has not only been covered and reported by reliable sources, but it has become a gigantic international story that has garnered more attention than anything in Ford's life. Reporting the allegation that has been already been heavily reported is in no matter libel. Nobody is going to be suing Wikipedia for reporting this controversy in this biography. When John Stewart devotes 10 minutes to the Ford crack controversy, the libel issue is totally non-existent. --Oakshade (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on the instant case, but a libel is still a libel no matter how many sources repeat it.--ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• a video made by junkies who are trying to sell it for huge sums of money which has been seen by 4 people who say in their opinion the man on the video looks like RF and looks like he is doing something illegal. if that doesnt raise enough red flags to say that per WP:BLP we should err on the conservative side and not say anything at this point, then you probably should not be editing articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I find this a very disturbing characterization of the issues here.

No one is arguing that a video made by drug dealers is notable. As everyone here agrees the original video is a primary source. This is a straw argument.

If gawker and the star had reported on the story, and no other reliable sources had picked up on it, it would be harder to argue that coverage of the gawker/TorStar merited space in the article. If a wire service, like AP, had written a story on it, and it was widely republished -- as-is, even if it were republished in dozens or hundreds of newspapers, it might be harder to argue it merited space.

But, what we have is many of the very most reliable sources, like the BBC, the NYTimes, having their own staff write brand new articles, with their own, brand new interpretations -- based on the gawker and TorStar reporting. In my opinion that makes discluding reporting on what all these very highly reliable sources have to say frankly indefensible.

I added a couple of sentences to the paragraph on Ford's "orientals ... work like dogs" comment. Twelve minutes later another contributor excised with those sentences the edit summary "Undid revision 556319228 by Geo Swan (talk) per BLPN and talk" -- but they made no attempt I can see to explain this excision.

I made an effort to explain why I thought BLP did not imply we shouldn't have neutral coverage of what Gawker and TorStar reported about the video here and here. Reverter not only hasn't explained their position, I am extremely disappointed they did not make the effort to offer counter-arguments to my arguments.

If you think some portion of BLP prohibits neutral reference coverage of the extensive commentary on the Gawker/TorStar reporting, then please explain that here. Please refer to the particular sections you think apply. Please explain why you think they apply. And I repeat I would appreciate you offering counter-arguments to my points -- if you have any. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No matter that it is in a million papers, the content of what is in the million papers is tissue thin: Repetition of stories that a video shot by junkies and being shopped around to the highest bidder has been looked at by two very very small groups of individuals who say "we think the person in the video looks like X" and "we think what we saw in the video looks like an illegal act." Until there is something more solid than that, we should not be including allegations or jokes about those allegations in an article about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The number of "witnesses" is totally irrelevant in reporting a controversy. If someone commits a crime and there was only one witness, that criminal can be convicted in a court of law provided that witness is credible. Having a neutral reporting of a controversy, even if later the controversy was based on fraud, it is still acceptable to include that information per BLP. In this case, the allegations controversy in itself has been heavily reported and there's nothing in BLP that prohibits the reporting that controversy which has now arguably become the most reported part of this person's life.--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Red Pen, you assert "the content of what is in the million papers is tissue thin". If, by this assertion, you mean that they can't "definitively confirm" whether the Toronto Star reporters identification that the video depicted Ford was correct, you are correct. If you mean those articles have nothing new to add I have to ask, did you bother to read those articles? Right above, I cited the Slate magazine article that started talking about the Gawker/TorStar reports of the video to compare Ford to Diamond Joe Quimby. You haven't said why you don't acknowledge that this article adds something new and notable to our coverage of Ford. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35 pm, Today (UTC+12)

• Now Gawker is saying the vendor of the video is incommunicado: ( see talk item "hoax")Bottom line: The BLP section on avoiding gossip says "...whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." This kind of unsubstantiated rumour would not be relevant to a disinterested article about the Mayor. It must stay out until/unless the video reappears at least. May122013 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2 editors keep reinserting the content without consensus. I will keep removing it and claiming 3RR exemption until consenus is reached. May122013 (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually you keep removing content without consensus, May122013, now breaking 3RR which you've been given a warning about. Two reporters viewed the video, which isn't a rumor by the way, it's getting worldwide coverage and the video holders becoming incommunicado now doesn't magically mean the reporters didn't view the video and all the coverage has disappeared.--Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking exactly like a hoax now or a political dirty trick. Canada's premier reliable source, the globe and mail's headline today :"Gawker’s ‘Crackstarter’ campaign hits bump: Sellers of alleged Ford video vanish" [12] If anyone reinserts this garbage, please be sure to include this aspect. May122013 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That Globe and Mail piece is simply a second hand reporting of the Gawker story that the video holders are currently incommunicado, the Gawker story you linked to above. There's nothing about the G&M piece that indicates it's a hoax. As a matter of fact, zero sources indicate it's a hoax. Only you are claiming it's a hoax. Ironically you're breaking WP:BLP and WP:NOR by claiming such a thing with zero citations. --Oakshade (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Editors which want it included seem to now be taking the position that even if the video was a hoax and never surfaces again, that the smoking crack allegations of the hoax should remain in the BLP. Are you editors here really going to stand for that? I don't mean to be pushy but I just can not see the necessity to include this type of "Gawker Trash"...I just simply don't get it. Can consensus trump policy? 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by May122013 (talk • contribs)

Noteworthy: The Toronto Sun reports that the mayor fired his chief of staff for urging him to go to rehab: [13]. The allegations are being widely reported throughout the media - claiming that this is simply a Gawker thing is a smokescreen, and reflective of May's own POV pushing. The controversial firing of the chief of staff, directly linked to this allegation, means that even if the video ultimately never surfaces and even if the mayor never publicly commments on this (other than to say "ridiculous" and blame the Toronto Star) that the allegations will need to be mentioned at some point. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of a felony clearly fall under WP:BLPCRIME and the policy is to be conservative in use of such material -- the NYT article thereon makes clear that it is not endorsing any claims, only reporting that the video was for sale etc. If and when solid material about the crime is available, then we can use it. Until then, no. Collect (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored this part of BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown". I still think we are working under WP:WELLKNOWN. It's appropriate to include it. Of course, it is very appropriate to remove any content that states Ford is guilty of smoking crack. We are only including the allegations and the resulting media 'storm' for lack of a better word. It is one paragraph, at the bottom of the article. It is not in the lead. It does not have undue prominence. In Toronto history, this episode is unprecedented no matter if Ford is guilty or not. Alaney2k (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread was set up wrong. It should have mentioned the disputed text and not misleadingly implied that anyone suggested using a video as a source. I have therefore set up a new thread below. TFD (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And also forumshopped elsewhere as well. Congrats. Collect (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

continued:

Is the following statement a violation of BLP?

"In May 2013, it was reported that a group of men involved in the Toronto drug trade had attempted to sell a video clip that they claim shows a man, alleged to be Ford, engaged in an activity that has been described as inhaling from a crack pipe."[14]

Ford is the mayor of Toronto, and the story was written by investigative journalists working for the Toronto Star, and subsequently received ongoing reporting by major newspapers and broadcast media across Canada, and in quality overseas newspapers, including The Independent,[15] The Guardian,[16] and The Washington Post,[17] just to name a few. This is certainly unusual coverage for a Toronto mayor. When he visited Chicago on an official trip for example, he received no news coverage, just an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune[18])

ItsZippy says, "When the best secondary source admit that they cannot verify the authenticity of this video, BLP probably applies...."[19]

TFD (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note - an earlier discussion thread was begun above but does not explain the specific edits or sources. TFD (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)))

WP:BLPCRIME still applies -- unless a strong reliable source is given, implying that a person has committed a crime through allegation or rumour is contrary to policy. The NYT article thereon is informative, and carefully avoides asserting that the allegation is true or accurate, only that a video was offered for sale for a large sum of money. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the text you dispute does not "imply" anything and merely "carefully avoids asserting that the allegation is true or accurate, only that a video was offered for sale for a large sum of money." Nothing even says whether smoking crack cocaine is a crime in Toronto. TFD (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What part of "imply" is a problem here? "George Gnarph was acused of killing 300 people, but the source is not actually available" implies that Gnarph may have killed 300 people. That we do not outright say "he committed the crime" is not the problem, it is placing an implication before the reader that he committed or may have committed the crime which is the problem. And it is that use of Wikipedia which is improper per WP:BLP. As for your fanciful idea that crack cocaine is legal in Canada -- see [20]. I rather think that if a person can be sentenced for something, that a crime is reasonably inferred to have taken place. And if it is a crime in Canada, I suspect is is also a crime in Toronto. Apparently you think differently about that inference. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

They're not saying they think crack cocaine is legal in Toronto, they're saying the section in the Rob Ford article did not say anything about it being a crime or illegal. There IS a difference, and to say otherwise seems obtuse. To have removed all of the information on this issue in the article, when it was carefully written and sourced, seems ludicrous. This is a major (likely the most major) issue in Ford's mayoralty. To not mention it in the article, when it has been thoroughly covered in national and international media, led to a warning letter from Ford's own cabinet, warranted comments from the leader of the federal Liberal party, led to the firing of Ford's chief of staff, led indirectly to Ford's firing as football coach... come on. The article as it was written before you excised all of the material earlier today was neutrally stating the information as it has been reported in reliable press sources. Your justification for the reversion - "it still contains an implication of an allegatiopn of a rumour of a crime" (sic) - seriously? An implication of an allegation of a rumour of a crime? The staggering number of weasel words in that sentence makes it pretty clear that even you admit the article was not just boldly claiming he committed a crime, but instead merely reporting that such allegations had been made against him. It presented a balanced view, with Ford's denial included word-for-word. It should be restored to the article. Starswept (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept

The requirement that a consensus be found before adding the contentious material is absolute - and TFD and others are now clearly in edit war mode to make sure the BLP violation remains in this BLP. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, guys, and is an example of BATTLEGROUND mentality at its very worst. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME I Have removed it from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is not whether there is consensus to keep or remove the material, but whether or not it violates BLP. TFD (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young

I've encountered some issues at Robert Clark Young, who was recently covered in a Salon article by one columnist citing Wikipediocracy sources. Some editors who seem to be closely tied with Wikipediocracy have since descended on his article and want to cover every detail of his alleged biased editing and banning on Wikipedia, and now regard this as more notable than his articles. The incident is still being discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales as well. I am concerned that:

• Leonard's Salon article is being treated as a secondary source.

• That and a handful of other minor columns are being treated as reliable secondary sources.

• The SPI and block notices are being used as sources.

• Many of the people editing the article such as User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah seem very closely tied with Wikipediocracy which is credited by Leonard in the Salon article as the original source of this controversy.

• The coverage of this incident is particularly important to them, because it is being used to assert Wikipediocracy's notability [21] and perhaps a DYK about it.

• The section about the Wikipedia ban and its quotations now dominate the article, rather than Young's writing career etc., and people are working on getting it into the lead.

• Because this concerns a Wikipedia editor who some people rightly have had content disputes with, we wouldn't be very reliably neutral about it even if Wikipediocracy weren't involved.

Can we get some neutral experienced BLP editors to look at this? Warning: you shouldn't get involved if you ever want to pass an RfA, because Wikipediocracy members routinely line up to oppose candidates if they disapprove of you for any reason. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Only legit concern there is about using the SPI and block notices, but secondary sources already mention these things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't spend much time here but what the heck kind of noticeboard posting is: "Warning: you shouldn't get involved if you ever want to pass an RfA, because Wikipediocracy members routinely line up to oppose candidates if they disapprove of you for any reason"? This is a pretty counterproductive way to initiate a non-drama discussion. Lots of people are watching how Wikipedia handles this. This is not a game. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll strike that as irrelevant, and you can proceed at own risk. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing as Shawn, and I agree with The Devil's Advocate. here are my opinions on what you have brought up here.

1. Leonard's Salon article is a secondary source, and Salon has an editorial review which qualifies it for entry.
2. "That and a handful of other minor columns are being treated as reliable secondary sources." please reference the specific sources and where in WP:RS you see a violation.
3. The SPI and block notices are being used as sources is a troubling statement and should be looked into, could you provide differences?
4. I'm not seeing any real meatpuppetry going on, in that the editing appears to be following wikipedia's standards.
5. That's a claim which is based on more speculation, the notability of the wikipediocracy article is independent of the content of the young article.
6. I think there are some WP:WEIGHT conserns with this article, however the editors involved seem to be working through it.
7. Based on the grave dancing I saw when this dispute started, I think that editors are calming down and sorting out those issues.

Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) The SPI etc are being used (as primary sources) for statements of fact regarding wikipedia's actions. 'Qworty was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia' - sourced to primary source, block notice on his userpage. 'A sockpuppet investigation was opened by Wikipedia editors to determine the extent of Young's editing under different usernames.' - sourced to primary source, the SPI. Acceptable use of primary sources, although I have reservations about the second one, its a bit OR to say it was directly a result of the Salon article. But given the timeline... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if you look at the code there, you'll notice that each use of Wikipedia as a primary source has a hidden editorial comment explaining the reasoning, and the talk page discusses the rationale. Over and out, and back to the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

While this section is certainly relevant, it discusses a matter much better discussed at the article's talk page. Please don't continue discussion here. Let this be a notification that the discussion occurs at Talk: Robert Clark Young, and remember to copy what's above to that page. More eyes are welcome. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has now been bounced to three separate locations. Can we please find it a home somewhere permanent, where it can't be erased/diverted/collapsed? NaymanNoland (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Groan! Where is the third location? This thread should just be for getting more eyes at the article's talk page, not for continuing discussions that should occur there. Canvassing just creates a mess. That's why I requested that it happen there. We welcome more eyes, and if there's a discussion a third place, does it really need to be there, or can it ALSO be moved to the article's talk page? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From [22]: "But Wikipedia editors are also not allowed to cite Wikipedia itself as a source. Therefore, as I was informed by one editor, the article about Robert Clark Young cannot include a reference to the investigation into his alleged sock-puppetry, unless a non-Wikipedia source reports it.

Consider it reported." LOL. The Wikipedia SPI page is used as an additional footnote to that secondary source (yes it is WP:SECONDARY when talking about the SPI), so I don't see any cause for concern here. As for the last point, how do you propose that non-Wikipedians edit his page when it's semi-protected? (Besides the fact that anyone editing the page automatically would become a Wikipedian.) 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Having just come across this controversy, the article looks fine to me. The sources used all appear sufficiently reliable, and self-references to Wikipedia are avoided except to the extent that they are unavoidable. As for 'The section about the Wikipedia ban and its quotations now dominate the article, rather than Young's writing career' - I'd say that's entirely appropriate, since it would appear that this Wikipedia controversy is what Young is actually notable for, much more than for his writing career. As a writer, he's fairly unexceptional; as a Wikipedia troll, he's notable.

As for the comments about Wikipediocracy, that seems to me like pure WP:ABF and an attempt at poisoning the well, and I don't think anything needs to be said about it. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Woolwich attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this move request discussion at 2013 Woolwich attack, an editor made this comment. I replied with this comment advising that it's a BLP violation to say that one part, even on a talk page, unless/until there's a conviction. I'm not typing the actual quote here because the instructions at the top of this page say not to do that. I'm sure the editor was well-intentioned, but I don't know if that part of his comment is supposed to be removed or redacted. If so, can someone please do that? And if my reply to him was incorrect in any way, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be safe, I redacted the quote I used in my reply on the talk page. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with your reply, or your concern about this, but I don't think anything needs removing. Just my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm confused. If it is a BLP violation then it would seem it needs removed/redacted. And if it's not, then I shouldn't have left the editor that message. :p Does that make sense? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor has responded to me at the talk page with this comment, which contains yet another BLP-violating statement, this time actually using the names of the individuals. I responded again with this comment, citing the relevant BLP policies. I added this little part afterwards. And now I see that the other editor just added this comment, in which he makes his most blatant BLP-violating comment; read the first six words. Can I please get a further review of this matter? And I would ask that you please redact any content that warrants it. I'm debating whether to now take this matter to AN/I, also. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you want to notify me that you've opened this dicussion about my comments? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC) :p

Perhaps our edits overlapped. In my opinion, Martin would perhaps have been better off not using the names of the persons. But equally, I'm not sure that revdel is called for. Unregistered editor, perhaps you could contact an administrator privately and request revdel? You could also contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you really think it necessary. I'm sure Martin would abide by decisions made by administrators or oversighters. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Martinevans, there is no requirement or even instruction here to notify you about this discussion. The matter at this forum is about BLP policy, not individual editors. AN/I can handle your behavior in this matter. Demiurge, thanks for your thoughts. I'd like to get other opinions about BLP policy on this issue. The rest can be handled at AN/I, where you would indeed need to be notified. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you not wish to invite me to make a contribution here? This discussion seems to be about edits which only I have made. So I am assuming that no other Talk Page contributor is seen as being in breach of BLP. I think the names of the two persone I named might appear in the article? In fact, reading the article, putting two and two togther, which sane person would come to any conclusion other than these two individuals murdered Lee Rigby? I shall await yout notification that you have taken this matter to ANI. I think it will make an interesting test case. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, this noticeboard is not about the individual editor conduct; it's about BLP concerns in general. AN/I is the place to handle your conduct. I honestly believed initially that you were simply unaware of BLP policy in this matter and would self-redact. My only concern here is making sure we are very careful not to violate clear BLP policy with regarding to making claims that someone not yet convicted, or even tried, is guilty of a crime. Regardless of what we "know" from news reports. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Martinevans, AN/I can address your conduct in this matter. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

due to being taken elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still asking for comments from other experienced BLP editors regarding the edits themselves, not the editor. So, far we've have the input of one editor. AN/I can deal with the behavior part of this matter. This is the BLP noticeboard, so please let's get an official determination about whether an editor is allowed to say that a living indivdual "is" guilty of a crime when there has been no conviction and not even a trial. And whether such comments need to be redacted. Demiurge, I would therefore ask the you please remove the "Done" indicator. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So why not get concensus here first before taking to ANI? Arh, too late. That's funny, I thought we'd had more than one editor contributing here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you are choosing to ignore (again) the response to that question. The BLP noticeboard is about BLP policy and BLP-related edits. AN/I is about your behavior. This noticeboard doesn't handle behavior issues. And so far here, we've heard the opinion of one editor. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I give it a few more days of your disruption and wikilawyering before you're blocked IP.--MONGO 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mongo, that's a very ironic statement coming from someone who has experience with being blocked to someone who's never been blocked. I'm sorry that you're so offended by my being concerned with an editor claiming that someone is guilty of murder before they've been convicted or even had a trial. If you disagree with BLP policy, you are more than welcome to try and get it changed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that an admin has removed the entire thread that Martinevans started on the article's talk page. The admin's closing comment described it as "BLP-violating" due to "claiming living people guilty of crime before conviction or trial". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP regularly changes address, so the whole range would need blocking. However my experience with this user is that he/she often has it right, especially with BLP.Martin451 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The incident has been closed at ANI. The comments on the talk page have been removed. If someone wants to discuss a pure policy issue, there are other forums for doing so, e.g., WT:BLP. There's nothing left to discuss here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Fadden

The article says he is director of CSIS, Canada's intel service. As of this month, that is no longer the case.

Tom Karsay Toronto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.155 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article, which already contained a cite that Fadden was being moved to a different position in the Canadian government as of mid-May. Not a WP:BLP issue in the slightest, but easy enough to deal with, so I did. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Roman Reigns

Roman Reigns, under the personal life section, has been repeatedly changed because of a non-existent interview to reflect that his engagement has been broken. I have fixed this twice, and request that the section be locked now so that it cannot be changed again without a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker2172013 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a week (there is no technical way to protect only a section). I've also removed some other unsourced BLP info that appeared in the section in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tila Tequila

I am requesting some attention to Talk:Tila Tequila, especially the section called "Super powers and the war on the Illuminati". This whole thing seems extreme, and a BLP violation to me. I would prefer that others address the issue, since I've been in a recent dispute with one of the editors on another matter. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just hidden-section'ed it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard McKenzie

• Richard McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created back in January by an editor with some problematic edits, unsourced other than (apparently) to IMDb. IMDb lists the actor as deceased, and so does the Three's Company Wikia site, but I could not find an obituary or a reliable source for the bio. ticket:2013052510006146 claims Mr. McKenzie is still alive, so failing secondary verification we default to assuming the subject is alive. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Interesting... no reliable sources to confirm the death of a guy who acted for decades but there are many unreliable sources that match what the IMDb listing says (date and location) and making clear that it's the actor in our article. There are also multiple death records websites that show the matching name/date/location, but of course there's no way to verify that it's this Richard McKenzie. It's just interesting that his acting credits on his IMDb page suddenly stop in 2002, the year it says he died. I mean, if he was alive, the listings would've continued. But how can there not be one reliable source that mentions his death? Strange. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd - Google news archive shows nothing. As for the Wikia page, that was created in 2013, so it's not useful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe he retired in 2002. Doesn't mean he's dead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This site [23] shows a Richard McKenzie who died at that date and location, but with a birthdate of June 7th, not June 2nd. Suspect this is a case of OR. Also the infobox month of birth conflicts with the month in the lede.--Auric talk 11:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Jeff Whittington

The article Murder of Jeff Whittington includes the names of witnesses and the pathologist. I can't see that they add anything to the article. They should be removed, right? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

that would seem reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You can take guidance from WP:NPF and WP:BLPCRIME. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Atchity

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

The Kenneth Atchity article looked a little long and dense, but I wasn't sure if it was merited or not since I'm not personally familiar with his notability level. So I looked at the page's history and discovered rather quickly that all of Aeikja3523's contributions were mostly to the Atchity article itself along with two other pages that had Atchity's name on them.

While I was typing the above up just now, I wondered who created the page, since Aeikja3423's contributions only went back to August 2011. Starting with the second edit at the bottom of this history page, you can see a run of edits by Aeikja, who is another one-topic, Atchity-focused editor. Same with Kennja and 76.169.35.247.

Focusing on one article is not itself wrong, but it is characteristic of WP:NPOV & Wikipedia:NPF problems, and the sheer number of such editors is reminiscent of sock-puppetry. So, I leave this possible puff piece in your hands. (I'm chronically ill, so following up on things outside the immediate moment is very difficult for me.)

Thank you so much for the easy-to-find link to this page and also your hard work in general! --Geekdiva (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Stewart Varnado

• Stewart Varnado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject was recently sentenced to prison, and several accounts are attempting to delete this sourced information from the article--their edits as WP:SPAs may merit an SPI. However, first I'm wondering if the subject even meets notability guidelines, as the rest of the biographical content doesn't appear to be reliably sourced, and I'm not finding much through Google searches (the article claims he's earned fan recognition in Singing News, but that publication's notability hasn't been established here, either). Perhaps this can be redirected to Dixie Echoes. More observations appreciated. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rami_Kivisalo

I'm not sure what to do about this. It seems just flagging it might be inadequate. It's totally devoid of independent references, and I'm not sure that the allegations in the first paragraph could be any more potentially libellous - but equally, it seems like he admits to all this stuff himself. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, moved to userspace as requested by user. I can't help but notice from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bugala that it was CSDed in July 2008. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Park So-yeon (Singer): KakaoTalk Controversy

Park So-yeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article in question: KakaoTalk Controversy

Violates biographies of living persons policies: -No original research -Neutral Point of View

Slight mis-translation and the article seems almost 'tabloid' like - gossip. Also poorly sourced and contentious.

A ridiculous bit of unencyclopaedic tittle-tattle which wouldn't belong in the article even if properly sourced. I've removed it and commented on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ross Wherrity ‎

86.40.198.33 (talk · contribs) is changing Ross Wherrity to Ross Wherity in an article titled "Ross Wherrity". I explained him/her if the problem is a typo in his last name to use WP:RM, but he may be violating the BLP policy with these unexplained removals. According to the BBC and RTE uses "Wherrity" and Hoganstand.com and Irish Examiner use "Wherity". What is done in these case? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If both spellings are commonly used, the article should at least make this clear. Beyond that, it may involve looking into the sources cited to see if there is any indication as to which spelling Wher(r)ity himself uses. I'm not sure that misspelling a name is really a BLP issue if the sources are doing the same thing, but we should try to get it right anyway. I'll do a bit of searching myself, and see if I can come up with anything. Meanwhile, I suggest that you try to get the IP to discuss this on the talk page, as edit-warring over this isn't constructive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch is biased and is not presenting the situation accurately. I have tried to explain this on my talk page but have just been slapped with warnings. I have used RM. It is a misspelling. Moreover before I came along the page used the correct spelling. Tbhotch reverted me when I noticed one misspelling near the bottom and changed it. Tbhotch wishes to ignore the many sources which know the person best (in two countries in two hemispheres, among them his local paper) and instead favour a source both with minimal interest in the subject and based in another country. Tbhotch also wishes to use passing mentions from five years ago when the player did not pass WP:NGAELIC (and therefore was not notable) over more detailed coverage from this year when he has played a major role in the League and Championship. The recent RTÉ ones use the single R. The one Tbhotch refers to dates from five years ago. This is the route to madness. --86.40.198.33 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"I have used RM.", no you haven't. WP:RM, short for WP:Requested moves, is a way to discuss the change of the name of a page, and there aren't discussions at Talk:Ross Wherrity. As I said here his last name is Wherity, but you are in a battle mode that rather than see I want to find a solution to this you are saying "Tbhotch is biased and is not presenting the situation accurately." "Tbhotch wishes to ignore the many sources" and other stuff. If I were biased, in first place, I wouldn't have said "Hoganstand.com and Irish Examiner use "Wherity". What is done in these case?". Now, thanks to this I can't move the page to Ross Wherity or change things like "Ross Wherity (Irish: Ross Ó Fabhartaigh), mispelled Wherrity,[BBC]" because it will be considered as an edit-war. Also, let me ask you something, why his Irish name is being removed by you with no justification? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you are both wrong - this should have been discussed on the talk page, not argued about in half a dozen different places. It isn't going to matter if we take a little time to get this right, and edit-warring in the meantime achieves precisely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, but I have a question. Is the guy being discussed here the Ross Wherity who has his facebook page using the spelling Ross Wherity? Moriori (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, I should have asked the question on the talk page, which I will now do, so pls ignore the above. Moriori (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why is it being included by you with no justification? A quick check of some of his teammates reveals the absence in the lead of any Irish names. I have used RM. It was a technical request. When I did so there was no controversy. That came with your contributions. I could be editing 101 different things But I've had to stop to deal with this mess. I have had my talk page slapped with warning upon warning, I have had all my edits reverted (including all the constructive ones that there doesn't seem to be any dispute over) and I have been treated by several users as if I were a vandal. If you were that interested you should have checked the sources and worked out why it was the way it was. I am not in battle mode. I have tried to express myself as plainly and clearly as possible. It is utterly exasperating but I have tried not to lose patience. If it were not that I thought you were genuinely concerned I'd have taken you for a troll such is the level of explaining I've had to do to you. Remember the spelling you disputed was present throughout the article and all I did was change the bottom. You then changed all the spellings and even changed quotes(!) It is very disillusioning. --86.40.198.33 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that 86.40.198.33 might to best to quietly walk away for now - it is looking increasingly likelt that 'Wherity' is correct, and if Tbhotch has indeed changed the spelling in quotes, it puts matters in a rather different light - as an issue best dealt with at WP:ANI. I'll raise the matter there, but again, I suggest that 86.40.198.33 should stay out of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

kainat soomro

Currently noted as "This biographical article needs more biographical information on the subject." Article is now well cited and sourced. I suggest that the warning should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesi1981 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Craig Gore

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

The Biography of this person is being intentionally distorted by parties. the source data does not relate specifically to the content of the article and contributors nor is the factual information relating to this person referenced accurate. The changes Made on the 27th of May are changes made by a third party related to commercial transactions with Mr. Gore. They have motive and dispute with him and and generated an article to mislead and intentionally deceive persons reading Wikipedia. Having only just become a member I tried to edit the article to reflect the facts directly relating to the contents. this has been removed and now replaced with material that is false. I have contacted Mr. Gore directly who has confirmed the false and miss-leading nature of the material posted. can you please advise what steps need to be taken to resolve the online material and stop the offending editor from continuing to make post which are intentionally false and miss leading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lens Bright (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I found and removed a few sections that were not supported by the sources and arguably there was undue weight placed on the issue, but the fact of his bankruptcy and investigation by securities regulators is pretty undoubtedly encyclopedic, given the sums of money involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSINTRO and contentious label on Narendra Modi

There is an ongoing dispute on the discussion page of the biographical article on Narendra Modi. The term "controversial" is under discussion and I am seeking third-party opinion on this issue. The individuals supporting the inclusion of the term have quoted several reliable and secondary sources that use this term to describe the individual and assert that this establishes wide usage and justifies the inclusion of the term in the lead section. On the other hand, some other users and I have stated that including a contentious label such as "controversial" goes against WP:MOSINTRO which specifically advises against the use of "peacock terms" and by extension contentious labels as well. I have quoted several examples of high quality articles such as Bill Clinton (GA), Margaret Thatcher (GA) and Gough Whitlam (2010 FA) as examples where specific controversies are described rather than the individual themselves or their actions being labelled as "controversial" in the lead section. Another user has quoted examples such as Yasser Arafat (2007 FA), Neville Chamberlain (2009 FA) and George W. Bush (GA) which have used the term to describe the actions of the individuals or the individuals themselves in the lead section. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to ask a further question, which is directly linked to the same dispute. Is it OK to say in the lead that X is controversial/criticized/whatever for doing Z, without mentioning in the lead that X has been found to be innocent from doing Z. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• First, in response to OrangesRyellow, mentioning accusations against an individual, particularly in the lead, without clarifying that the accusations have been proven false could be misleading and could very likely violate WP:NPOV. I'm not sure why that would be done, except to mislead. Next, I found these guidelines regarding the "controversial" question. Based on these, imo the lead of the Narendra Modi article should drop the "controversial" or "give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about." Per WP:PEACOCK, under “Contentious labels”: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution… When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.Coaster92 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coaster92. I am grateful to you for the patient, detailed and clear response. I would like ask a further question, which is also directly related to the same dispute. What should we do if we have sources alleging/asserting saying that X has done Z, and is controversial for doing the same Z, but subsequent investigation (recently) finds that all the charges are completely baseless and-or false and-or imaginary and-or based on forgery etc. Please note that all the sources making allegations etc. are from before the findings of the investigation being declared. After X being found innocent, do we still continue to use those old sources to assert that X is controversial / criticized / whatever for doing Z ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether this discussion should be about the specific case of the WP article on Narendra Modi, or about the larger case of whether, as a WP rule/policy, the label "controversial" can be included in Intro sections of BLPs. I think the specific case should be discussed on the appropriate Talk page of the article, and the policy issue here and on the MOS:INTRO Talk page. The specific case has nuances that have not been specified here. For instance, (a) it is not just only one single criminal incident "Z" that "X" is controversial about. (b) Not all accusations have been "proven false" (just that, in a few specific instances, X was cleared of criminal culpability by investigation teams and hence no charges were brought in those cases). (c) There are a large number of reliable secondary sources (academic and media) from around the world that use this label and hence it is not a fringe viewpoint. (d) Reliable sources continue to use this label even after as mentioned in (b), some investigation reports were closed clearing X of specific charges. There is a lot that can be said about this, and is discussed at length on the article's Talk page, and in its archives. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sour grapes? :-) You don't get to mention academic/media/whatever accusations without mentioning that he has been found innocent by judicial investigation. That much is very clear. Academic and media refs are rather poor sources for judging criminal conduct, and indeed, many/most of their assertions/accusations have turned out to be baseless/based on forgeries etc. So, their validity has now been severely compromised IMO. I am awaiting a third party response to my second question please.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC) And please be clear, **ANY** BLP related dispute/issue can be discussed here at any stage, except those cases where it is more appropriate to use email etc.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of specific events that were ever under investigation was not mentioned in the Intro. For example, the content under question is not that "Modi is controversial because of his alleged involvement in the Gulbarg Society Massacre case". Modi's guilt or innocence in any specific criminal case was never a question here for this discussion. The reasons for the "controversial" tag go beyond the Gulbarg Society Massacre case or any specific criminal case in which Modi's role was investigated. I don't understand what you mean by "assertions/accusations have turned out to be baseless/based on forgeries etc.", when any such accusations were never part of the lede in the first place. This and other details of this issue have been discussed at length on the Talk page in question. - Aurorion (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is Modi supposed to be controversial about? About the 2002 Gujarat riots/communal violence. If you think the investigations were only about the Gulgard society massacre case, you are highly mistaken. Please see The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team has totally disagreed with the observations of amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, and said no case can be made out against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 communal riots under any of the Sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned by him.(emphasis mine) The investigations have been much more wide ranging than that and all of the basis for Modi being controversial has been given a thumping K.O. This source already gives some idea of the forgery, fraud and other unethical means employed to vilify Modi and his administration. For further pointers, see [24][25][26] these links to know the role played by NGOs and like. All of the basis for Modi being controversial/accused is based on fibs. You can find thousands of media and academic sources claiming things which have now been found to be baseless and fraudulent. It is obvious that these sources are not doing any investigation, have no basis for saying things which they say, and thus all of what the media and academic sources were saying prior to the publication of the investigation results must be disregarded. They have all been obsoletized by the results of judicial investigations. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that Modi is controversial because of the 2002 Gujarat violence. However, the controversies are not limited to allegations of criminal culpability, which is the only thing investigation teams are concerned about. The SIT, in the matter of Narendra Modi, had a limited role of investigating whether Modi is guilty of crimes committed in the 2002 violence. Being not guilty of crimes is not the same as being not controversial.

As an example, consider George W. Bush. The WP article, which is a WP:GA, calls him a "controversial figure" in the lead. Like Narendra Modi, he was never charged with any crime, and no evidence was ever found of his guilt in any matter. But still, there are a large number of reliable sources that call him "controversial", and the WP article reflects that. There are several other WP articles, including Featured Articles and Good Articles, of people who have never been found guilty of crimes, but still are "controversial".

It is obvious that these sources are not doing any investigation, have no basis for saying things which they say, and thus all of what the media and academic sources were saying prior to the publication of the investigation results must be disregarded. It is not "obvious", and it is your personal opinion. Highly reputed media and academic sources continue to call Modi "controversial" even AFTER the publication of these "investigation results". For links to international media sources as recent as this month, please refer to the article's Talk page. If an overwhelming number of reliable secondary mainstream sources continue to call Modi "controversial", in spite of these "investigation results", then there is no reason why WP also shouldn't.

They have all been obsoletized by the results of judicial investigations. "Judicial investigations" do not "obsoletize" controversies. If they really did, then reputed media and academic sources would not still continue to call Modi "controversial", and we would not be having this discussion. "Controversial" is not a legal term subject to a court's ruling. No court ever ruled that Narendra Modi is not controversial - and even if it did, we should still go by reliable secondary sources. - Aurorion (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Amicus Curiae (referenced in the news excerpt posted by you) was also appointed by the Supreme Court, and the official report submitted to the court recommended that Modi can be prosecuted for crimes under the IPC. That was also the result of an official "judicial investigation" ordered by the Supreme Court, as much as the SIT report. - Aurorion (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Who told you that Narendra Modi was never charged with any crimes? Narendra Modi was charged and tried in court for the very things he is supposed to be controversial about. It is obvious that you are not reading through the links I am providing. It is useless to converse with a person who does no investigation and keeps talking on the basis of gut feeling, common knowledge etc. You are simply ill informed and wasting my time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but are you saying that formal charges were filed against Narendra Modi and he was tried? I am not aware of any formal charges being brought against Modi. Sources, please. And please specify which crime exactly he was charged with.

Please feel free to stop wasting your valuable time whenever you wish. - Aurorion (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, OrangesRyellow, referring way back to your question on May 26, imo, those sources would be used in support of the information they contain but everything needs to be presented in a neutral point of view without undue weight being given to any point. It would need to be made clear about the outcome of allegations mentioned. All this information might not be appropriate for the lead, which is intended as a summary of the article. In any case, it's not so easy or appropriate to discuss hypotheticals.Coaster92 (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Coaster92, perhaps what you mean is that everything needs to be presented in a neutral point of view giving "due" weight to any given point. Obviously, if one thing is more important than the other and is indeed highlighted by reliable sources, we need to give it more weight. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Coaster92. I would like to point out that almost **all** of the sources criticizing Modi are making bogus claims. For example, Modi is supposed to have instigated/condoned Hindu violence by invoking Newtonian theory ("Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.") Modi has been endlessly criticized for "making" this statement, but the allegation is baseless and false. Even the proponent of this allegation has issued a denial.[27] So, it is apparent that all the academic and news sources which carry this allegation are lying and there is no evidence for Modi ever having made the statement. It is also apparent that although there are tens of thousands of academic and news sources which make this claim, all of them are simply repeating heresy, and NONE of them made **any** effort to actually investigate. This allegation is one of the most prominent reasons for Modi being considered controversial. Rather than Modi being at fault, it is the academic and news sources which are at fault. Almost all of the other charges against Modi have also been found to be baseless, false, fabricated and bogus. But the "reliable sources" made all these claims ad nauseum, and continue to repeat them even AFTER the allegations being proven to be bogus. If it is right to use sources full of bogus claims on BLPs. so be it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In short - yes. If all the reliable sources describe him as 'controversial', then his wikipedia article will reflect what reliable sources say. Thats how sourcing works. If a significant part of his biography/notability is due to controversy (rightly or wrongly) this will be reflected in the lede. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Only in death. At present, the article lede is describing him as "controversial", and also alludes to criticism related to Gujarat violence, but does not mention explicitly what he is controversial for, and does not mention at all that he has been found innocent by SIT. Coaster92 has indicated that this is not OK and that his innocence must be included in the lead, otherwise it is misleading. Do you think it would be appropriate to describe in the lead what events he has been found innocent of and also to describe that forged documents, false witnesses, etc. were used to make allegations against him?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Almost **all** of the sources criticizing Modi are making bogus claims" "it is the academic and news sources which are at fault" - your opinions, WP content is based on reliable secondary sources. "Almost all of the other charges against Modi have also been found to be baseless, false, fabricated and bogus" - your opinions again; by whom? Sure, one judicial investigation report (by the Special Investigation Team) opined that there is not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against Modi. However, another report ordered by the Supreme Court (by the Amicus Curiae, ordered to conduct an independent assessment of all evidence) differed with that SIT report, and found evidence to the contrary. The Amicus Curiae report is also an official report ordered by, and submitted to, the Supreme Court of India. So it cannot be definitely claimed that even the allegations regarding criminal culpability were "proved to the bogus" - not that these allegations are the only thing Modi is controversial about.

"... alludes to criticism related to Gujarat violence, but does not mention explicitly what he is controversial for" - There is a dedicated section on the 2002 Gujarat violence, and details are given there. This is the practice in other BLPs with the "controversial" tag: e.g. George W. Bush. "Related to the 2002 Guajrat violence" is enough information in the lede IMO, and this is how many reliable secondary sources briefly describe the nature of the controversy anyway (example - this BBC article dated March 2013 describes Modi as "controversial" in the opening paragraph, and follows up with "he has been criticised for his handling of Hindu-Muslim riots in 2002" in the third). "He has been found innocent by SIT" - this is a misleading disclaimer with insufficient information: the SIT report, which was one of the official investigation reports, found no evidence of criminal wrong-doing. But, at least one other official investigation report (the Amicus Curiae's report) disagrees with this; and nevertheless, the controversies are not just about criminal wrong-doings. All these details can be given in the article body (the SIT report is mentioned in the body currently). I think the details of investigation reports (SIT report, Amicus Curiae report, etc.) can be given in the appropriate section. - Aurorion (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The SIT finds no evidence against him and has given him a clean chit. A number of sources have described the SIT findings as a "Clean chit" to Modi. It is a clear violation of NPOV to note allegations, but fail to note that the subject has been given a "Clean chit" through judicial investigation. And the amicus curiae report only say that a Modi cam be prosecuted, but the SIT has disagreed with the amicus curiae on that too. My main point is that any person is innocent until proven guilty, but the article is projecting him as guilty (by noting allegations, criticisms, controversialness, etc. and omitting to note the innocent part, even after he has been found innocent by a judicial investigation. We could discuss proper wording, but omitting his innocence altogether is non neutral). This is clear bias and is a violation of NPOV as indicated by Coaster92.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I am talking about the lead, not the whole article please.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, as I have stated numerous times before, "controversial" is totally different from "guilty". Describing a person as "controversial" is NOT "projecting him as guilty".

Secondly, again, the SIT report was just one official investigation report. The Amicus Curiae report is another, equally "official" report ordered by the Supreme Court, and covered by a number of reliable sources. The SIT's report says that they could find no evidence for any criminal wrong-doings by Modi: sure, we should mention that. But, the Amicus Curiae report which independently assessed all the evidence differed and did find enough evidence to recommend filing of official charges: this is as notable as the SIT findings. Both these are notable and should be included in the article, but only in the body, along with specific allegations about involvement in crimes, that these reports address.

This distinction between the general "controversial-ness" (controversies in general about the 2002 violence) and allegations of criminal culpability is important. Currently, the specific allegations related to criminal wrong-doings (e.g. of his direct involvement in the Gulbag Society massacre) are NOT mentioned in the lede. These are mentioned in the appropriate section though, as are the findings of the SIT ("clean chit" as you put it) and the Amicus Curiae (differing with the SIT, recommending filing of charges). This is the practice followed in case of other BLPs with the "controversial" tag. The article on George W. Bush provides general information about the Iraq War, the financial crisis, etc. in the lede; and then provides details of specifics in the body, along with clarifying information. - Aurorion (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your contention that Describing a person as "controversial" is NOT "projecting him as guilty". It is. My view is that for the lead to be neutral, regardless of whether or not the lead uses the word "controversial", if the lead conveys anything negative about his role in Gujarat violence, it is imperative that his innocence/"clean chit" be mentioned in some way or other. Otherwise it is a violation of NPOV in the lead of this article. If other articles are in violation NPOV in a similar fashion, you are welcome to get those articles corrected too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether "controversial" can be included in the lede or not is a question of Wikipedia guidelines, which is the objective of this discussion and the one one the MOSINTRO Talk page. Right now, there are several BLPs including reviewed Featured Articles and Good Articles which have similar statements in the lede (like "X is a controversial figure") with just simple generalist explanations, and more expanded details in the body. But my view is that the "clean chit" (again, in just ONE official investigation report, but contested by another official report) needs to be mentioned only after specific allegations of what the "clean chit" is about (i.e., specific allegations of crimes) - and the other reports also need to be mentioned to provide the complete view. The "controversial-ness" is much broader in scope than just allegations about specific crimes, and can be in the lede IMO without details of investigation reports. This was my suggestion for the lede section: "Modi is a controversial figure both within India and internationally. His administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence. However, no formal charges have been filed against him." - Aurorion (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with Aurorion's suggestion. Oranges, Modi is controversial not because he went around killing muslims or anything like that, he is controversial because many people believe that he pushes a right wing Hindutva agenda, because there is some antipathy toward his remarks against other religions and because a hefty chunk of India's population thinks he was personally responsible for at least some of the killings during the 2002 riots while, on the other hand, there are many Indians who admire him because they think he's done a good job with Gujarat's economy and because they like the way he thinks and acts. That's what controversial means - that people have diametrically opposite notions about him (the 'good Modi bad Modi in this Economist article). 'Clean chits' don't even come into the picture. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to regentspark, my mention not to give undue weight to any point is a reference to WP:UNDUE, which discusses this topic. Saying items should be given due weight is in a sense another way of saying no item should receive undue weight. The policy discusses the topic in detail.Coaster92 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, yes, information in reliable sources might be appropriate for inclusion in an article, other aspects considered. If it can be shown that a source is repeating information that originates from an unreliable source, that can be brought up for discussion. Countering information from other reliable sources can also be included in the article's discussion of the topic.Coaster92 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My view of the issue is like this. Controversial Modi = Bad Modi = Modi who is somehow guilty in 2002 Gujarat riots. Innocent Modi = Good Modi = Modi who has a "Clean chit" from SIT. We have sources to present both views. As you can see, some users want to highlight the Bad Modi, but suppress the Good Modi.(regentspark is an ed on the article) As you seem to have indicated, I too think it is a clear violation of NPOV to highlight the Bad Modi in the lead, but suppress the Good Modi in the lead. Highlighting the fact that Modi has a clean chit will have a devastating effect on the Controversial Modi. Presenting negative view of the subject, while neglecting to present the countering, positive view, even when we know about it, is plain dishonesty and a clear evidence of bias. If the "clean chit" can be discussed in the article body, but cannot be mentioned in the lead, the same should be done to "controversial" and any allusion to criticism related to 2002 Gujarat riots. It might help if you could specify whether it is OK/not-OK to allude to criticism/controversy regarding 2002 Gujarat riots while neglecting to mention that he has been found innocent by SIT/given "clean chit" by SIT in the lead. Is it OK to mention the negative info in the lead, but bury the countering info in the article body only? I agree to describing Modi as "controversial" in the article body, but not in the lead because the validity of "controversial" has been gone down with Modi coming clean through SIT investigation, and revelations that forged documents, false witness, etc. were used to wrongly vilify/accuse Modi, thus making him "artificially" controversial. I would like the lead to mention something about criticism related to Gujarat violence, and also to mention the "clean chit" as the counter. Other formulations look non neutral to me.

If it can be shown that some source is repeating bogus information, (like Modi invoked Newtonian theory to incite Hindus), what should happen? Should the source be scrapped for lack of due diligence, and for proving themselves unworthy of being RS for the topic at hand? Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. @regentspark. Please, my username is not "Oranges"/"Orange".

Hi OrangesRyellow. I saw a message from you on my talk page but I am not sure/can't tell if there is a message for me here. Anyhow, I think I have added what I can on this topic and I am now moving on to other projects. All the best.

Don Young

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

This article all-too-closely resembles the sort of hit pieces which typically come out of the D.C.-based media. There will be little or no activity for months, followed by a flurry of activity whenever another "controversy" is reported. As I mention on the talk page, too much of the article (based on an offhand glance, from a quarter to a third of it) is dominated by what would be called a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section on most articles. However, this may be flying under the radar of any scrutiny due to the section being called "Tenure" rather than "Controversy" or "Criticism". The remainder of his biography tends to be rather short on details, despite the fact that being a member of Congress for over 40 years means that there is no shortage of details reported by and published in reliable sources. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 03:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There are way too many things labeled "Controversy," and that took me all of 5 seconds to figure out. That said, Don Young's tenure has been marked by a lot of, um, foot-in-mouth moments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing my point of view a bit, I will say that my personal politics are completely the opposite of Don Young's. But when I wear my Wikipedia hat, the slogan on the front reads "NPOV". Here's an interesting sentence from this hit piece: "Published reports have linked Young to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, although no wrongdoing has been alleged." "Linked"? "LINKED"? My gosh, that's bad. I only have a few minutes, but I am going to trim some glaring anti-Young POV pushing. Anybody else want to help? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempts at improving this article have twice been blindly reverted by User:Jerzeykydd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit of "commentary" was in there - and a lot of "however ..." argumentation, not to mention that the section on how corrupt he is was nasically using a source that put him on a "corrupt" list without any actual further documentation other than what is already in other sections. I suspect there is more stuff to be phrased in an NPOV manner, or to be removed. Collect (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors, I am semi-retiring from wikipedia. So I am giving you guys a green light to dismantle my hard work on Don Young's page. God forbid I, or any wikipedia editor, display highly controversial comments that Don Young said himself on his wikipedia page. For that, I was accused of POV. Apparently, I was "nasically using a source that put him on a 'corrupt' list." In fact, I was not the original editor who added the CREW accusations on the wikipedia page. Whatever. You guys can feel free to delete all of Don Young's controversial comments over the years. For now, I give up. I'm going to cool off from wikipedia for a few months.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A biography of a politician shouldn't be a list of "highly controversial comments" - it should dispassionately discuss their political activities, platforms and notable events in context. For example, what's more relevant: Young's long-held and heavily-debated stance in favor of drilling in ANWR and his repeated authoring of legislation to that effect, or the fact that he once argued with a witness at a hearing about ANWR? The media reduces people to sound-bites and Wikipedia should not do that.

My personal opinion of Don Young, quite frankly, is that he's a backwards buffoon and one of the last vestiges of the once-politically-dominant colonial mentality in Alaska that began dying when Ted Stevens lost his re-election campaign. But his political history is part and parcel of Alaska's history, and it deserves a fair and complete retelling, not a collection of hot-button soundbites.

I am sorry that you feel the need to take a wikibreak, but the fact is that some editors disagree with your presentation of the material and believe it should be reorganized and rethought. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamid Algar

This BLP had a full half of the article devoted to a "spat". Discussion is on the talk page, where there is some agreement that the content is notable, and where I maintain that the extent of the detail was completely UNDUE. Your attention is appreciated; my worthy opponent suggested mediation, and I suppose this board can function as such. In the meantime, this being a BLP and the incident minor, I have trimmed the section considerably. Thank you for your attention. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I chimed in and encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I deled a bit which was a parenthetical comment in the source given - if the source considered it to be of trivial significance, so ouht we. Collect (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is no currently any BLP violations in this article, especially after the edit by Drmies. One should realize that if a living person has certain historical ideas (and this person is a professional historian), his ideas must be described in the article, no matter if we like these ideas or not. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One reason I started this thread was to convince my worthy opponent that I wasn't just whistling Dixie, and I hope your commentary here and on the talk page convinces them that there were indeed serious BLP problems. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Wikipedia biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Wikipedia normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Platell

This article needs more eyes ASAP - several SPAs have been reverting-in poorly-sourced, misrepresentative and extraordinarily-defamatory claims relating to child pornography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article and have popped a note on the talk page asking for editors to discuss further and find sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what sources are needed. Its an article she wrote in the Daily Mail where she looks at the CP issue and how easy it is to find online, as a result of which she has to view some. Completely open and above-board. The article itself would suffice as a primary source for 'she watched CP' as she admits it. The question is - should it have a section devoted to itself? God no. I agree with most of NorthBySouth's arguments. About the only reason it should be in the article is if other reliable sources have commented on her article/handling of the piece. But the way it is currently phrased/presented has overtones of smearing. (AGF - unintentional) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Anna Järphammar

• Anna Järphammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The content about ANNA JÄRPHAMMAR is not relevant. Please insert whats relevant:

Anna Järphammar born in Sweden but her birth parents are from Mallorca and Estonia. She was adopted as a child into a family living on Smadalaro outside Stockholm. [Citation needed] She has since she left MTG after nearly 16 years in the television industry trained as a photographer and worked 2009-2011 as a project for a documentary with the working title of Traffic. [1] Järphammar was Head of News MTG TV 2003-2008 and anchor of the news program Update on TV3, until the news department of the MTG was closed in 2008. She has also produced sports news to Viasat Sport Sportcenter. When she worked as a project manager at MTG she founded, among other things. a publishing company Sonet Book 2006, after MTG sold Bromberg's publishing house. She has a degree in Journalism and Strategic Communication and a Director of Media Leaders 2006-2008. Järphammar started on TV as presenter in TV6 (current Viasat Nature / Crime), then profiled as a "women's channel". Before that, she worked as a model for the Stockholm group. When she struck the TV6 in 1994, she made an acclaimed advertising campaign for IKEA. [2] Anna has three children, Julian, Hedda and Henry and lives with her husband Karl in Nacka, outside Stockholm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absguide (talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources which verify your claims? GiantSnowman 11:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

General William Caldwell

I had a person contact me claiming he was Gen. William Caldwell. I found out he was a scammer. I feel bad for Gen. Caldwell that this person has impersonated him, as I understand several times. I am sure there is something that Gen. Caldwell can do to stop this disgusting person from doing this and using his name. He has had a distinguished career and this should not be tarnishing his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.226.187 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussions relating to biographical material on Wikipedia only: we have no connection with Gen. Caldwell. If you have been 'scammed' I suggest you contact the police. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick Begich (author)

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

This article has been subject to controversy of various sorts for years. I've done what I could to try to make it a proper biographical article, to little or no avail. Lately, there appears to be two main factions at work here, one who wishes to make this a coatrack to the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program article, and those who wish to turn it into a straight up hagiography. Recently, an editor was blocked for edit warring related to this article. Now, it has been merged into the HAARP article, with no discussion. I contend this is improper for an article which previously survived an AFD (in other words, the appropriate thing to do would be to launch another AFD). RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging is not deletion, ergo it's not a topic for *fD - if you don't believe it should have been merged, you can editorially "un-merge" it by undoing the redirect and explaining your disagreement with that action on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's still on my watchlist, I did my part earlier, only to see it largely undone by people with an obvious agenda and perhaps more time on their hands for this sort of thing than I have. I'll think about it. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 03:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion, it appears that an editor chose to deal with a particularly troublesome article by doing a backdoor deletion. It also appears that the "consensus", if you can call it that, is that this is perfectly okay. Since I've yet to come across any policies related to backdoor deletion and therefore am not sure how to proceed from here aside from what NBSB has said, I recommend closing this thread. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 20:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I merged this because the only other information in the article besides the HAARP theory stuff and the familial relationships was some minor political campaign material of no real importance. The content of the article therefore could be reduced to the one sentence already present in the HAARP article; if anything, the separate article presented more of BLP risk than the merger. Calling this a deletion is inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rafiqul Gani

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

Why should Wikipedia have an article on him? This articles are made either by the professors or past students who want to show that their prof was someone. I mean seriously,THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY REASON FOR HIM TO BE IN WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.158.179 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, Articles for deletion is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Krishna Athal

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

Dear all, Please note that this page no longer hold valid information about krishna athal. I am working as his personal secretary and hereby request it to be private until it is corrected and updated. regards Avish Ramgolam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avishramgolam (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no means by which a Wikipedia article can be made 'private'. If it is outdated, it needs updating, not hiding. Incidentally, as Krishna Athal's personal secretary, you should read our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, and take note that other than for obvious misinformation, you are advised to propose changes on the article talk page, rather than making them yourself. Note also that article content should be based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Cosby in advertising

Hello! Is this article unduly harsh on Mr. Cosby, as suggested by the GA2 review? Usually articles are love fests, and need to be toned down, but I ended up finding information critical of the campaigns he was part of (an ill-timed campaign for Coke before New Coke launched, a campaign for a financial company that had troubles before hiring him), I'm not necessarily even sure it's critical of him himself. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly critical myself. However the lede needs to be beefed up to include his details that are relied on later in the article (his race; his long running career; etc). The prose could be improved. Loaded quotes such as "afraid of the dark" need close referencing. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The "afraid of the dark" quote is cited near the start of the "Early career" section. Should the reference number also appear in the lede? I've added the full paragraph that the quote comes from, to the article itself as a quote=. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Race is such a flash-point issue that I'd use the citation in both places. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, changed. Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Arunima Sinha

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

Looks as though there are news reports concerning this lady, implying she may have made exaggerated claims. I don't know how valid these claims are, but the usual "slap it in as soon as we see a news item" thing appears to have begun. Maybe some more eyes here would help. Begoon ^talk 10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

List of bullycides

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of bullycides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entirely unsourced "list of children and young people who have lost their life or been driven to suicide because of bullying at school or bullying during their school years". Can anyone give a legitimate reason why it shouldn't be blanked right now as a gross violation of WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be an attempt to use a neologism to assert connection between disparate incidents, without even sourcing the list. I know the children are dead, but BLP applies to them IMHO as they are known for only one event - their death. Last I checked, Wikiopedia does not support articles on neologisms. Blank the beast. Collect (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also making unsourced allegations to the effect that criminal behaviour may have occurred, as far as I see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In a way - yes -- anyone named as a "bully" in any way is a bigger worry on Wikipedia. The relevant BLP issue at this point is a minor who is a victim of a crime IMO - which is also a protected class. Collect (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP problems aside, it's also a poor word. You stick a -cide on what is killed, not what kills. We don't have a "List of cigaretticides", either. Just like you can't know the whole recipe for cancer, you can't presume to know the full cause of suicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The subject matter merits being conservative. Delete immediately, then discuss if some portion or form of it should be restored. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It has already passed...uh...AfD? a couple of times, according to a note on the talk page. Since it's been kept a couple of times, wouldn't the conservative thing to do be to keep it and then discuss reworking it? However, I do agree otherwise with many of the points here. I wrote up some notes on the scope of the article & the problem of the neologism on the talk page itself in case it is kept. --Geekdiva (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It has not been at AFD before (though it is there now) so I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. Even if it had been kept at AFD a dozen times, it does not matter. Consensus changes. GiantSnowman 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yung Berg

Appears to have been written by a 3-5 year old child whose primary language is not English. This entry is completely unreadable due to poor grammar, multiple typos, improper sentence format, author's inability to distinguish between "our" and "are", nonsensical statements, incorrect punctuation etc.

I just registered this account and I'm pretty sure that if I delete this entire article my edit will just be reverted by a bot, hence why I would appreciate if a more experienced editor could get rid of this monstrosity. Ketamia (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the entirety of the 'Controversies' and 'Personal life' section, plus the claims about the reality show. What a load of useless drivel. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

dicey issues re starting Erwin Singh Braich

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#RS_.2F_notability_re_Erwin_Singh_Braich and the RS noticeboard linked there.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Roger Protz

Your entry for me is out of date and inaccurate. I have edited it but it has immediately reverted to the former entry. Unless an accurate and up-to-date entry is published I shall refer the matter to my lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerprotzbeer (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To begin with please be careful that you do not actually threaten legal action. When someone threatens legal action they are blocked until the action is completed or they withdraw the threat. Now to the problem, your edit removed all the references and the categories from the the article. That is perceived as vandalism and is quickly reverted. Since you have an obvious conflict of interest I would suggest you use the article's talk page, Talk:Roger Protz and make suggestions on how to improve the article. You should also provide reliable sources so that others can verify the information. If you have any questions please ask. GB fan 11:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Livestrong Foundation

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

Can I get some eyes on this article? An IP is repeatedly inserting Armstrong's doping issues into the lede. I've gotten them to gradually soften the language [28] [29] [30] but I'm not sure the current version meets WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing in Biafra articles

Biafra was a successionist state in current Nigeria, many of the participants are still alive. There appear to be systematic sourcing issues in articles such as Operation OAU, Midwest Invasion of 1967, Capture of Owerri, Operation Tail-Wind, First Battle of Onitsha, Joseph Achuzie, E.A. Eutuk, Kenneth Keazor, Ikechukwu Azuonye, etc. The underlying issue is that it appears that there may be that there are essentially no independent reliable sources on the war. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Szostak

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

What does "half-American" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.10.223.185 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "Szostak is half-French and half-American". Presumably one parent of American nationality, and one of French nationality. It could probably be better worded, but unfortunately the source it cites seems not to be available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A quick search for Stephanie Szostak father, Stephanie Szostak mother, Stephanie Szostak parent come up with nothing, and Stephanie Szostak French only comes up with references to her being born in France. (Disturbingly in this process, Google's auto suggest feature included a listing for WikiFeet. A wiki for every fetish, I suppose.) -- Zanimum (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim O'Rear

• Jim O'Rear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LIBELOUS STATEMENTS FROM USER SELLPINK ON JIM O'REAR TALK PAGE

User SELLPINK has made numerous libelous, opinionated, and subjective claims on the JIM O'REAR talk page. Notice that this users only input to Wikipedia has been vandalization to tehe JIM O'REAR page and has had no other input on Wiki. This is abviously a user set up with the sole purpose of vandalizing this particular page. SELLPINK has not provided cited references for his libelous claims and repeatedly deletes information from the article which contains valid references. These libelous claims are in violation of Wiki use regarding living persons. Libelous and subjective statements can be found here: Talk:Jim O'Rear

I have removed the unsourced negative info from the article's talk page. Any negative info about a living person must be include reliable sources where ever it is within the English Wikipedia. GB fan 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The BLP is extremely poorly sourced. Really. Collect (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Depuffed a bit -- does anyone think an extensive "filmography" of a minor personage is utile? Collect (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not me, at least - so I restored your edit. Begoon ^talk 13:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Smith (author)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Thomas Smith (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Smith (author)

This article which is properly supported and passes notability has been continually subjected to "Deletion", name changes, and disparaging comments. Please have an immediate response to cease these humiliating, biased, and discriminatory actions. The article is about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• The notability of an article being questioned is not "humiliating, biased, and discriminatory". The burden is on you to demonstrate notability using reliable sources. GiantSnowman 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'll pretty much re-state what I said in the deletion discussion. The sources listed in the article aren't usable as reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE REVIEW THE HISTORY. It seems that the two responders here have already expressed their view and by the actions (closing discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seconds from it being opened. Also, please consider the long-term affect on Wikipedia for categories like BDSM Activists, BDSM Writers, and Gay Writers if the type of discriminatory action demonstrated is tolerated. I find the comments above inconsistent with Wikipedia standards on references and notability.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I am engaging the editor on their talkpage to try and resolve their concerns. That being said: William, please stop accusing others of discrimination. There is no discrimination happening here. The same discussion would be occurring if the article was about a little old lady who has won some awards for her petunias. — The Potato Hose 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved commentator, I have to say that I can likewise see no evidence of 'discriminatory action' by those involved with the AfD discussion. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines concerning appropriate article subjects and content, and the emerging consensus seems to be that the subject of the article doesn't meet the notability criteria. I see no particular reason to disagree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yi So-Yeon

Correct name is Yi Soyeon in her journal paper and official document, rather than Yi So-Yeon. Hanja is 李炤燕 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.64.118 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert A.J. Gagnon

• Robert A. J. Gagnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another editor wishes to add a controversy section to a stub article, and shows no interest in building out other aspects of the article. Please monitor. 128.187.97.21 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism revdel'ed and editor warned. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter Luff

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

A friend has drawn my attention to the repeated insertion of misleading comments in my biography. He has kindly deleted them on at least two occasions but they have been reinserted. I strongly contest the implications, balance and accuracy of these statements and seek guidance on how they can be prevented from reinsertion. The comments that concern me are:

He later justified UK arms sales to serial human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as follows: "I'm not condoning human rights abuses, of course not, but . . . sometimes you have to be pragmatic."[3]

Luff has a salary of £65,738. He states he cannot afford to live in his Kennington flat so he rents it out, collects the income and claims the expenses of renting another flat in London. Luff is standing down at the next election.[4]'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Newtok, Alaska

Newtok, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has seen a number of recent edits referencing what appears to be actual residents of the community and "anaq", which literally means "shit" in Yupik. If you're unfamiliar with Newtok, the community is being moved to a new location, known as Mertarvik, due to erosion. The edits imply that the cause of the erosion is due to the "anaq" of these individuals. These edits have been quickly reverted, but now I see that they're being made from an actual account, whereas before they were being made from IPs. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it shows "Username or IP removed" in the edit history, followed by a reversion which clearly outs the editor. Is this some sort of BLP privacy problem in itself, or just funny?

But yeah, not cool what's happening to the town or the article. At least the article is easy to fix. Thanks again for the enlightenment! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Brian Whitlock/Jordan Dale Lucas

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

Jordan Dale Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two just-created articles about Canadian individuals recently convicted of animal cruelty: Whitlock pleaded guilty to beating his German Shepard dog to death and is awaiting sentence, while Lucas pleaded guilty to torturing a kitten to death, and was sentenced to seventeen months in prison. Given the lack of evidence of any enduring notability, An AfD for each article has already been proposed, but I'd like to see some input here on what WP:BLP policy has to say on the articles - I can't see either surviving AfD, but should they be speedily deleted, blanked, or otherwise removed from view? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The only CSD that I can see potentially applying would be WP:CSD#G10, but I don't even think that applies here. Make our case at the AfDs and ensure the creator is more aware of BLP issues in future. GiantSnowman 15:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• They would definitely fail a "speedy". IQ125 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hashim Thaçi

Hi all,
Is kosovo.net a suitable source for the claim that Hashim Thaçi is the head of a criminal family? I'm concerned that the site is dedicated to one side of a rather polarised debate. I don't doubt there's organised crime in the region, but don't we need a reliable source before we call somebody a gangster? bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's really not. It appears to be the Web site of a branch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has a well-defined POV on the issue, opposing Kosovo's independence. We need something much better than that before, as you say, calling someone a gangster. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that if I remove this kind of thing, it gets reverted; but fixes made by other editors are more likely to stick. bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Source is not www.kosovo.net/, source is book "Albanian Terrorism and Organized Crime in Kosovo and Metohija", by BIA (Security Information Agency), September 2003. You have been mislead, North. Also, it was added "By the BIA September 2003 statement, " in the beginning of the sentence, so link can be excluded anyway, as source is not the website, but the book. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you not see the problem with using the Serbian intelligence agency as a source for a BLP on a Kosovo politician? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So what, kosovo sources are pushed 24\7? Do you have some reason to belive that BIA is not reliable? If you do, please, present. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, it is impossible to verify that the republished source is actually true to the original, given its location on a wholly-unofficial Web site with no relationship to an official government agency. It's like trying to play the telephone game only with accusations of criminal behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That book can be found on several web locations, not only there. But i can contact them in order to gain some useful links. That will do it. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A book published by the Serbian intelligence agency cannot be regarded as a reliable source concerning allegations that an Albanian politician is involved with organised crime. Not ever. Never. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And vice versa? This means that all other confronting entities intelligence agencies are not reliable then, right? --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I very much doubt that we'd use material from an Albanian intelligence agency as a source for an assertion that a Serbian politician was involved in organised crime - but that wasn't what was asked here. This reference desk does not answer hypothetical questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The web site is not a reliable source. If the book itself appears, we can have that conversation then, but I tend agree with the dwarf and others here that the BIA is not a reliable source regarding allegations of criminality against Albanians.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia—the encyclopedia where anyone can amplify smears against a person by using a source from an organization which has a mission to oppose that person. Fortunately Wikipedia still has enough dwarfs to ensure those smears will not be appearing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Andythegrump must then believe that the FBI is not a reliable source concerning allegations of illegal activity by a foreign national as well And call me a troll again you dwarf.Camelbinky (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist. You are a troll ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Troll or not, you've got a point. Not one you'd probably stand a chance of winning in argument here, but a good one. Any enemy is a poor source for info on the other. I think you might be confusing the FBI with CIA, though. Even if not, point stands. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not trolling, but relevant question. FBI with CIA must be ignored then about Syrian, Afghanistan, and any other conflicting terrorist/politician/person. CIA is same as BIA in Serbia. If BIA is not reliable, neither is CIA. Simple as that. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we'll make much progress with WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments about the FBI and CIA. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

More a check than an issue (re Star Wars Kid's identity)

For the last several years, we have been vigilant against including the identity of the Star Wars Kid on that article (about the meme), despite that his identity having been known through other reliable sources but not directly from the person. In mid-May, the person (now an adult) publicly came out and did an interview with Maclean's [31] about this identity and how it had affected his life and how he wants to highlight his ordeal in the past to help those children affected by bullying. We have decided at the article to put his name and these details since with his own affirmation of being the Star Wars Kid, any issues surrounding BLP have effectively disappeared (though of course, we still need to be careful in general). I have asked JohnCD, who about 3 years was the closer on a RFD for the real name to consider restoring the redirect due to this new situation, but I would like to verify that this seems like the proper approach in handling the situation. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This all seems reasonable to me. Obviously, be careful, but you know that. Morwen (Talk) 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --John (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, if he's consented to an interview with a major magazine, it's acceptable to move forward with this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think moreso, he approached the magazine to do the interview, making the case even stronger. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored the redirect. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy

Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is in no way notable. The sources are brief mentions in news 2 news reports 1 day apart. Anything on the article can easily be combined with Abu Ghrabi entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.161.155 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So be bold, redirect and merge. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -- Salary Information Just Edited but VERY WRONG -- IMPORTANT

Hi,

Someone just edited Recep Tayyip Erdogan's page and claimed that his salary is $1M/month. I double check some Turkish sources and this information seems to be not correct. The link at the end of the paragraph is also not relevant (at least for the salary info).

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

As so much public protests are currently happening right now in Turkey, it is very important to remove this paragraph (3rd one) and maybe close the page to editing until after the events in Turkey calm down.

Thanks!

Ozgur

PS: Here is a Turkish newspaper reporting his assets in ~$5M range in 2012. http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/735371-basbakan-erdogan-mal-varligini-acikladi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.147.2 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted one IP edit which contained information unsupported by the accompanying reference. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

1. wikipedia-en-revdel

This biography is a self promotion of the authors book and therefore should be removed..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.125.74 (talk • contribs)

If you think the article should be deleted, you should use proposed deletion or articles for deletion processes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Yakunin

As of this moment, the lead in the article states "is a corrupt Russian official"
the word "corrupt" is libelous and is clearly in violation of WP law, even though it's supposedly backed by two sources. Or am I getting something wrong here? Because in Russian version there's next to nothing that seem to be controversial in the lead. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate for lede, and POV at best. Negative info can be added if it's verifiable, comes from multiple reliable sources and is worded and incorporated neutrally. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ford

Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The problems have increased with this BLP, imo. Yesterday, Gawker, the originator of this "story", announed that the only alleged evidence of the Subject smoking crack is "gone"; this is being reported widely [32] now, that its gone. I then removed all reference to the likely hoax or dirty trick with this edit summary Removed non BLP compliant content- Gossip rag Gawker now says the alleged cell phone video of someone who looked like the Subject smoking crack is "gone" Check with Wikipedia legal staff before re-inserting and was quickly reverted. Also a new potential editor User:HochMeister tried to insert content showing there was a casting call in Toronto from Jan - March for a Rob Ford look alike.[33] None of the editors who removed this content put it on the talk page.

In addition , there are RS articles about a Rob Ford look-alike connection to this event [34]

So, although this BLP was just on this noticeboard and recently archived, I think you should have another involvement due to these 4 additional aspects:

• video gone
• look alike involvement
• casting call for look alike

I can do no more with this BLP as there are 4 entrenched regulars of the article who greet my every edit on the Talk page with ad-hominem crticism. User:Martin Hogbin said they treat it like a soapbox and I agree. May122013 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

One issue is that May, as above, keeps calling this event a "hoax", which smacks of Original Research (no reliable source has called it a hoax) and betrays bias, IMO. May is the only editor consistently arguing against reporting of this controversy. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This story is being treated fairly on the wiki page, with only this one editor objecting out of apparent political biases. This is a waste of time, and I'm thinking you should be blocked from editing the article and article talk page for your continuing behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Echoedmyron & Muboshgu. This appears to be a textbook example of Chauvinism.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars aside, the paragraph on this subject currently appears to be very neutrally written and well documented. It leaves the subject up to the reader to do their own research and form their own opinions of both the article subject and those telling the story. I don't see any reason to leave it out of the article as the controversy itself is widely-known public knowledge. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For the past month, Toronto news has closely reported this story which began when first the president of Gawker and then two City Hall reporters from the Toronto Star viewed a video showing what appeared to be the mayor smoking crack cocaine and commenting on various issues. The story has also been extensively covered in international media, including the BBC, New York Times and many other publications. Developments on the story are routinely picked up by AP and appear in hundreds if not thousands of publications worldwide. Leno, Jon Stewart and Jimmy Fallon have satirized the mayor. Because of the widespread coverage, we should mention it. TFD (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

May122013, you're breaking WP:BLP by using your original research speculation that the controversy was a "hoax". Zero reliable sources have indicated it's a hoax. It's only you. The Toronto Star reporters and Gawker editor John Cook reported they viewed the video and described its contents. Whether that video became missing won't change that. The reports are there forever. Accusing them of committing "fraud" as you did on the talk page is truly your WP:BLP violation. WP:BLP is to ensure accuracy of content, not a tool editors can use to delete heavily sourced negative content on subjects they like.--Oakshade (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Uncle Milty's comments regarding the article's content. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

May122013 and another account, Hockmeister, have also been pushing text related to a casting call for a Rob Ford look-alike that occurred in January 2012. The text, which infers that the alleged crack-cocaine video was produced with a look-alike Ford actor, has been removed from the article as being obfuscation. On the Talk page I've posted that:

:::"There have likely been a number of casting calls in the past for Barack Obama look-alikes as well, but that doesn't mean there's an imposter in the US White House who has replaced him. If there were a reliable published source which stated that Barack Obama has now been replaced by a look-alike, then that fact could be written into his WP article. Such a reliably sourced statement has not happened with Rob Ford, so similarly you can't state or imply that the current crack-cocaine controversy stems from a Rob Ford look-alike casting call."

However May122013 persists in numerous reverts and challenges to virtually all material that reflects negatively on Ford, however well cited and compliant to MOS standards. May122013 is at the very least being disruptive. HarryZilber (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem here, other than disruptive editing by May. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to the ad hominem criticsm, this will be my last edit relating to this BLP : I am copying and pasting another Editor's response from the talk page : "It is not May that is biased but the article. I came in response to the RfC, I have no knowledge or interest in the subject but it is quite obvious that this article is being used as a soapbox to promote negative opinions of the subject."' User:Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC " May122013 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

One cherry picked comment from nine days ago doesn't outweigh everything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, after discussion on the talk page here: [35], in which May is the only editor arguing to remove content, May has gone and removed content without consensus. Clearly, saying one is "done" editing is not the same as actually stopping. The disruption in this article has gone on long enough. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the BLP policy is being brutally buried under the appearance of consensus at Rob Ford. If one reads and thinks about this section of our BLP policy:[36]. especially "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself...... whether the material is being presented as true..... Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." This is not rocket science; just read the words in our policy and respect them. Consensus does not trump policy and when you include all of the editors who have been chased away from editing this BLP, there really is no consensus to include allegations by anonymous drug dealers that a 90 second non-verifiable cell phone video clip shows someone who resembles the subject smoking crack. Its absurd, I mean just think about it. May122013 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page - the allegations are not being made by "anonymous drug dealers", but being asserted by named reporters who assert they have seen this with their own eyes - the same folks who are the ones asserting that the video was shown to them by drug dealers. It is interesting you are willing to accept that part of the story, FWIW. Not to mention that the ensuing scandal has taken on a life of its own. This is a significant situation in the political career of this subject, who has seen a raft of resignations in his office since the scandal broke, and the story continues to grow. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are the 3 reporters asserting that they saw with their own eyes? The 3 reporters, 1 from a gossip rag and the other 2 from the Subject's arch enemy newspaper even have differing accounts of who said what on the 90 second video clip but more important, the reporters attributed the material that they put in their publications to the anonymous drug dealers. The 90 second video clip is the "material". The reporters did not create the video clip (the material or content which was reported), the anonymous drug dealers did. Its absurd to leave this in a BLP. May122013 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No matter what you think of Gawker, the Toronto Star is a respected newspaper and, I believe, the largest newspaper by circulation in Canada. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"gossip rag and the other 2 from the Subject's arch enemy newspaper" - this basically says all that needs saying, as far as why your input is compromised by POV, and why you should cease editing this article. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Star and Gawker are primary sources

I'm not well versed in the distinction, but in light of the discussion on the talk page, according to the explanations made by several other editors. the Star and Gawker are primary sources and subject to the inclusion limitations thereof; for example: " Three reporters saw the video. They reported what they saw. Then, the international media picked it up. It is that simple." [37]

• policy"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."[38]
• "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. "

I'd say that these 2 primary sources can not be used because they do not make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and also what they claim can not be "verified by any educated person with access to the source" as the source is not accessible at all.

Also, using primary sources

classifying sources "In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists", now maybe it does exist or does not exist at this point in time.

If these 2 sources are primary sources, why has that not been mentioned on the talk page before? Would it not have been helpful and relevant to the discussion? It would have been to me as the way primary sources are and can be used is quite different than secondary sources, according to the policy I've read this AM. Has this aspect been considered before in relation to this BLP's content?

May122013 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we not getting into WP:DEADHORSE territory here? The article is fine, we have one editor with an axe to grind it seems, everyone else seems now to have come to a consensus. 'We saw a video showing Rob Ford smoking crack' is a pretty straightforward descriptive statement of a fact. This is tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be a statement of fact, but that is not what was said nor even what is in our BLP, which is: "Gawker said it had been offered a video showing Ford "apparently" smoking crack cocaine." and "Two Toronto Star reporters wrote that they also viewed the clip, on a smartphone in the backseat of a car on May 3, and noted that they have "no way to verify the authenticity of the video" but that it "appears to clearly show Ford..." May122013 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

May122013: you're Wikilawyering when you say "...these 2 primary sources can not be used because they do not make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and also what they claim can not be "verified by any educated person with access to the source".

Again, the Toronto Star did not claim that Rob Ford smoked crack, but that that after viewing the video three times it appeared that Rob Ford was smoking from a crack pipe and that he further made a disparaging homophobic comment of a Federal politician as well as a racial comment on the minority high school football players he formerly coached. That was a straight forward statement of what they had viewed three times. Kindly stop Wikilawyering to revert or alter negative material on Rob Ford. HarryZilber (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like, hopefully, on this noticeboard, to stick to discussion of the BLP policy. Whatever ad hominem concerns there may be should be addressed elsewhere. Both comments above are non sequiturs and deflections from the point I raise as to whether Gawker and the Toronto Star are primary sources regarding the alleged features of the 90 second video clip. I am hoping other editors will help in keeping ad hominem concerns out of this discussion. May122013 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I woud like you to realize your interpretation is most likely incorrect as most every other editor has disagreed with you. Move on,, this is taking up too much of everyone's time. How any of that is ad hominem is beyond me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, I only came to this "interpretation" about an hour ago. This topic is whether Gawker and the Toronto Star are primary sources regarding the video clip, not about past discussions on different topics. May122013 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction: this topic is about you, yet again, trying to whitewash the article by any means necessary. What is your connection to Mr Ford? Your userpage (well, several userpages ago, you seem to have some sort of difficulty remembering passwords; hint: enable your email and you will always be able to reset your password) says you are Canadian. Do you work in Mr Ford's office? Did you vote for him? If the former, you absolutely should not be editing about him. If the latter, news reports have pretty clearly shown that 'Ford Nation' voters are what they call 'low information voters,' as in facts do not really matter to them so long as Mr Ford cleans up the 'gravy' at City Hall, and continues to lie and obfuscate (along with his brother) about how much money he has saved the city.

Either way, it's this simple: you are wrong. Stop now, before someone (me, for instance) finds an admin to block you for extensive disruption. You should read this, this, and this before you edit again. — The Potato Hose 14:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

comment: The editor directly above has only been editing for 1 month, yet appears to be well versed in Wikipedia.. however, just to put those unwarranted suspicions of COI to bed I will say: No, I do not work in Ford's office and am in fact a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. Those who have pressured me to address this, perhaps 12 times in total by now, should, imo, not be editing an encyclopedia which is grounded on Assume Good Faith. May122013 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cute. You bitch about ad hominems, yet not-so-subtly try to smear me. How very Fordian of you. As you know, Toronto does not have party politics at the municipal level. So your Liberal membership is irrelevant, and a not-very-clever way of deflecting the question. Again very Fordian of you.

I have been accused many times of being " a conservative" on the talk page of this BLP; also, there is a lot of party polics at the municipal level in Toronto, as others here will confirm if they are knowledgeable about such things. I did not want to smear you, only mention something that seems at least as strange as me forgetting my passwords, which you mentioned. May122013 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Have you read the links I provided above? (this, this, and this).
2. Do you understand the meaning of those links?
3. Are you going to drop this crusade, right here and right now, or do I need to report you to AN/I to have you blocked until you agree to end this disruption?

The choice is yours. — The Potato Hose 14:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think my point about many ingrained editors of this BLP deflecting discussion away from BLP policy and toward ad hominem issues is well illustrated right here within the last 2 hours. May122013 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

I will factually show this noticeboard that the editors who above are depicting this issue as me being the lone opposition to including content about the alleged video, are absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of editors over only the past 3 weeks who have had the same view as me, that the alleged crack smoking video info should not be in the BLP.

User:HochMeister

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Collect

User:Martin Hogbin

User:Darkness Shines

Having shown that, I'd like to hear from any senior editors who have not edited the BLP as to whether Gawker and the Star are primary sources with regard to this BLP; I notice that none of the group above are saying that they are not primary sources. Its important I think, in order to determine whether their initial articles can be used as RSs. May122013 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited the article, which you know, and there is no such thing as a 'senior editor' on Wikipedia, which you also know. You have also been told that no, these are not primary sources. The person who filmed the video is a primary source. Gawker and The Star are secondary sources. Which you know. You are trying a shotgun approach to whitewashing the article. Which you know.

Your answer to my question #3, above, is obviously 'no,' so please consider this your notice that there will be a discussion regarding you on AN/I in the next few minutes. — The Potato Hose 15:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

See how this discussion is being systematically deflected away from our BLP policy infractions? Now by a possible sockpuppet. If I am blocked, I sincerely hope a senior editor will read and think about the BLP and this discussion. As you can see, I had not edited for quite a long time up until 1 month ago, so it should be obvious I have no axe to grind. I truly am only here to try to improve the BLP and many others have said it desperately needs improving; e.g.

• "It's not about IF this article should be blown away and re-built, it's about HOW....." EBY (talk)18:19, 28 May 2013

May122013 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You will either provide proof that I am a sockpuppet on your next edit, or you will retract the accusation. — The Potato Hose 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

here is the proof that a "senior editor" designation does exist here on Wikipedia. Please read more carefully, I said "possible" sockpuppet. If you wish to discuss that more, I do not, perhaps you can explain why you are so well versed in Wikipedia after obly editing under your current user name for about a month? May122013 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You will provide proof or you will retract the accusation. Now. See WP:NPA for why. — The Potato Hose 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Potato, I have other time commitments until June 18th. I will have a look at your initiative then. No hard feelings. May122013 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Service awards, which you just linked to to "prove" the the "senior editor designation does exist here on Wikipedia":

Please remember that neither the number of edits, nor the length of time from when an account was created are, in and of themselves, good indicators of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority, through this award, than "novice" editors.

Your claims about "senior editors" are misguided, absurd, and, in fact, insulting. Stop. siafu (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If I am blocked, I sincerely hope a senior editor will read and think about the BLP and this discussion as well as the discussions on the current talk page. AGF does apply with me. I have no interest whatsoever other than improving articles. May122013 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The only other article that you have done any work on in recent time has been Aaron Swartz, suggesting that you are only interested in improving two articles; and the vast majority is on Rob Ford, making you a WP:SPA. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gawker specifically is a primary source as such for the material directly involving Gawker and the $200,000. The Star's report is secondary with regard to Gawker, and primary with regard to the Star - the view of a source secondary to the Star would allow the Star material in. Does Wikipedia always make sense wrt "secondary"? No. But we live within the structure existing for such. I hope this is clear. In any event, WP:BLPCRIME applies to clear allegations of criminal acts - and possession of Cocaine appears to be a criminal act in Canada. Collect (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

This is now at ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Glen Bradley

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

Anonymous Author keeps adding unverified personal attacks from anonymous source to this political candidates page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Bradley

The IP address of the attacker is 70.166.114.8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocs704 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. POV wording. Plus, the first cited source is some sort of political advocacy group and the other is a scribd link. We need WP:NPOV wording and reliable third-party sources if this is worth inclusion of a WP:BLP. I added it to my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadık Albayrak

Hi, this article mentions some info that seems rather trivial to me, like what his sons do and to whom they are married. Even though that is to the daughter of a prime minister, I don't think that is pertinent (WP:NOTINHERITED). Neither am I sure that it is very pertinent to mention that Albayrak is "friends" with said prime minister. However, the editor who created this article insists on maintaining this information and resists a more neutral formulation of the "friends" thing. Perhaps I'm overzealous here, so I'd like to have the opinion of some other editors on this issue. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Aletta Ocean

I have deleted some material that I expect to become problematic on this page, on the pages of other alleged victims and on the Mr. Marcus page. Extra eyes on these pages would probably be a good idea. David in DC (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Amy Hart

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

Resolved

 – It's back up now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

the link to her personal website is broken (www.amyhart.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.6 (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's back up now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Francis Pryor

Anon adding unreferenced information on alleged diagnosis of mental illness, and the subject working for mental health charity. I note that there is stigma attached to mental illness that there shouldn't be, but this still needs to be referenced, even if we make no value judgement on the effect on his life. I only find a blog post about "Frances Prior" (sic) [39] that doesn't look totally unreliable (it would help if they could spell his name right and not change his gender), and could be perhaps used to source more neutral facts, but doesn't look reliable enough to source this statement. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No source, no dice. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich Brüssow

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

Badly written and subjective commentary under 'Influential Games'. Needs attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sits69 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles J. Hynes

• Charles J. Hynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Even excluding the current back-and-forth over copied content, at a glance this looks like a candidate for review for NPOV. It's primarily a lengthy, sourced critique of the subject's integrity. WP:UNDUE anyone? 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article really has problems. For example, the source for the following text in the article is an opinion piece by a former Mayor:

In a May 15, 2012 Huffingtonpost article which compares the Jewish ultra-orthodox Hasidic community to Catholic clergy, the former NYC Mayor Ed Koch wrote that unless District Attorney Hynes announces that he will release the names of all defendants, including those of ultra orthodox Jews charged with any child abuse, sexual or otherwise, and will pursue criminally anyone who engages in obstruction of justice, advising someone not to assist the police in their investigation of a child abuse incident, the governor should supersede him in these cases and appoint a special prosecutor to handle them.[47]

There there is stupid stuff like putting personal information in the "Early life and early career" section, coathanger stuff like the demographics of where he was born (Flatbush), and, of course, the preponderance of negative stuff. Politicians have negative stuff said about them all the time, by those who dislike them. That such negative opinions appear in s reliable source doesn't make them worthy of being inserted into a Wikipedia article. (If it did, we could fill the Barack Obama article with negative statements reported in The New York Times: X said this, Y said that, Z said this, A said that, and so on and so on forever.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow, Xeni Jardin, Alice Taylor

Cory Doctorow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xeni Jardin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alice Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
67.0.213.91 appears to have a problem with Cory Doctorow (of Boing Boing) Xeni Jardin (works for Cory Doctorow) and Alice Taylor (Cory Doctorow's wife). See discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow. Could someone please take a look at this? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin Narey

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

More eyes on here, please. A WP:SPA is determined to portray him as "a staunch and vocal supporter of forced adoption". Further discussion here: User_talk:NeilN#False_allegations_and_vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Narey wants to see adoptions increase by 50% is cited to a 245 page document with no page number given. Has anyone been able to check this to ensure it is not taken out of context? If not I think it should be removed. January (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked. It's on page 77 of the PDF. "There should be lots of performance information, but we should not have targets for adoption. I think there is scope for adoptions to certainly increase by, let us say, 50% or more." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat out of context. It seems related to his response to the previous question in which he talks about the backlog of children waiting to be adopted and a need to find more adoptive carers, so he's not necessarily talking about a 50% increase in children being taken away from their parents, which is what the statement could be read as implying. January (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. That's why I took the forced adoption stuff out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the same user that created Forced adoption in the UK, which is now up for AFD. Clearly they are here to push an agenda. To clarify, 'forced adoption' is essentially a neologism the editor decided to push here in lieu of a greater issue regarding foster care and adoption in the UK. So none of this material warrants inclusion in the bio, at least not in the form it was first inserted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)