Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive197

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

Daniel Amen

I think more eyes should have a look at the radical transformation this article is undergoing. Wikipedia seems to be going to great lengths to cast doubt, and discredit any aspect of this man's work. While I agree that addressing perceived claims is important. I feel we may doing some real world harm here as well. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)]

Content about the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions and claims of their efficacy and success must be supported by MEDRS quality sources. Any such claims that contradict the mainstream scientific consensus can only be presented as DUE with proper balance. Theories not broadly supported by scholarship in their field are FRINGE and are treated as such. The article is well sourced. The talk page has extensive discussion to support it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this was just previously raised by Sportfan5000 at WT:MED#More eyes on Daniel Amen. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OP is newish, just parachuted in, has not discussed issues on Talk, and doesn't appear to understand WP:FRINGE nor WP:MEDRS. Hopefully will withdraw this as we engage. Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My concerns remain, despite assurances that this teams of editors is applying FRINGE and a MEDRS standard. I started this posting as suggested at ANI, and also posted to alert WikiProject Medicine, which all seem perfectly acceptable, and desired steps. My main issue is that we are glossing over Amen's proven success, even while dismissing and discrediting all of his medical work. It is undeniable he has wired for decades, sold piles of books, is an in demand speaker, makes many TV appearances, and arguably has amassed one of the world's largest collections of contemporary brain scans as a pioneer in the field. I think the article is woefully out of balance essentially discrediting Wikipedia. I do not enjoy how my involvement there has been characterized or the reception I was afforded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)]

FRINGE is about science, but psychology is not, and never can be, purely a science--

Hi, I have a concern that the article is being treated like a "science article" when, in fact, much of the topic is about psychology, which can never be a "pure science".

I think treating a psychology article (such as this one) like it is about "pure science", is misguided. Treating Psychology as a science has inherent limits-- that is, in reality, psychology is much more of what is called a "soft science" than it ever could be a "hard science". Science can help in the understanding of psychology, and should be used as much as possible to the extent that it can help, but there is something about psychology that is more elusive and much more difficult to pin down. There is an aspect of psychology that is very hard to apply hard science in any conclusive way.

In a nutshell, psychology is inherently subjective, when science is a practice in objectivity. (Psychology being an essential part of what psychiatry is, in addition to the neurological and pharmaceutical aspects). All of this makes it much harder to "scientifically evaluate" things that involve psychological states of mind.

*So psychiatrists are all less scientific than they appear to be (including Dr. Amen's critics). And so are neuroscientists, when they 
start talking about psychology.

Psychiatry is far from being a "cut and dried" field, and that applies as much to Dr. Amen's critics as it does to Dr. Amen. I therefore fear that treating critics of a psychological theory as if they are the "voice of science" is giving these critics authority that they do not deserve. Of course Dr. Amen should not get authority that he does not deserve either. But this does not take us to the same place as a "FRINGE conclusion. Instead it takes us to a place of not being able to know much of anything for sure. And so a responsible article would rely more heavily on the "this can not be known for sure either way tone", than a FRINGE tone. There can be no FRINGE where there is no science, or in this case, some science, but not enough science. This cuts both ways, applying just as much to Dr. Amen's critics as it does to Dr. Amen.

Thanks.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"There can be no FRINGE where there is no science" ← No, our policy is explicit: "This also applies to other fringe subjects [than pseudoscience]". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but then the threshold for what constitutes FRINGE, in this case, would not be a scientific one, or at least not purely so. The threshold is different in a nonscientific case. And the criticisms expressed would also differ (somewhat).

And even more importantly-- the "pure-science" seeming criticisms of Amen would not be appropriate for the article (in and of themselves). It means that a science critique of Dr. Amen is less valid.

However-- understanding this does allow other kinds of criticisms of Dr. Amen to be more valid--

A valid criticism is that the science is unproven, (when he may be acting like it is). But an invalid criticism is that other scientists can "know" (in the sense of scientific consensus) that his science is wrong. They can't, and they are engaging in their own puffery when they pretend to be able to do so.

Psychiatry (and it's subset, psychology) are two of the most "puffed" so-called sciences (but the puffery is field-wide, not just specific to Dr. Amen). Sure these fields benefit from adherence to scientific method as much as possible, but they are paradoxically also inherently extremely hard to fully subject to "hard" scientific method.

The illusion perpetuated in the article right now is that his critics are scientific and that the disagreement is based on known science. The truth is that his critics are far less scientific than they make themselves out to be. So the scientific aspect of their criticisms do not hold water as much as they seem to. This is not biochemistry or mechanical engineering or physics, this is psychology, where it is perceived to interface with neurology. As soon as you mix a soft science with a hard science, it can no longer be a pure, hard science.

So Dr. Amen can be legitimately criticized, but not by scientific consensus nearly as much as the article currently implies. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The criticism from sources is that Amen is charging large sums of money for an unproven therapy with potentially harmful side-effects while claiming it works. It's fringe (medical practice) and there is much RS criticism which Wikipedia shall (duly) relay. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say - that criticisms should be omitted because you think the whole subject domain is subject to a kind of subjective relativism? If so, RS disagrees with you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this part, "Amen is charging large sums of money for an unproven therapy". But I disagree that it is medically FRINGE because the subject is not purely medical, it has a very large component in psychology and so can not be properly evaluated by purely medical means.

Giving the article a medical-fringe angle then implies that psychology is medical when it is not, or not sufficiently so for the purposed of medical fringe or science fringe designations.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that medicalizing this subject, also encourages medicalizing other psychology articles. Which opens the door to subjecting them all to medical-fringe or science-fringe designations. The ramifications go far beyond this article. Is there evidence of puffery here? This can be substantiated (in opinions in his field, and through knowledge of science). But there is not medical proof that he is wrong.

It's the wrong standard and could be abused elsewhere (in other psychology articles).

Psychology, despite it's inherent resistance to scientific method, deserves to exist and has value, without being hammered by FRINGE accusations. Better that everyone knows to take psychology with a grain of salt, rather than to label all of it as a falsehood.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, this IP [to the left] << is me, I forgot to log in). Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

One last point, about "unproven therapy", as his professional critics have complained. Most psychological therapies are actually unproven. However society has agreed to allow psychology to exist, nevertheless, because even though it is murky, it appears to have helped a lot of people (a murky socially-agreed standard for a murky, soft science).

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Amen is a psychiatrist which is a medical field. Psychiatry has what are considered by the scientific consensus to proven diagnostic and treatment techniques. Despite an editors statements psychology is a scientific field. The mainstream scientific consensus is that it is a field of scientific study. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but psychology and psychiatry are soft sciences, where psychology comes into play within each of these fields. Holding a soft science to a hard science standard is a very difficult thing to do. To allow the good that psychology can bring, one has to accept it's fuzziness. Psychology is nothing like chemistry or physics or biology.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not differentiate between so-called "hard" and "soft" sciences; it all falls under the purview of plain "science". Ca2james (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox

Belle Knox is a 19-year-old college freshman who has done porn work to pay for school tuition. She was outed by a fellow classmate, and has been doing national media, and posted essays, under her performer name only. She has cited her, and her families privacy as a concern, in national media.

The article has been pretty stable, and the AfD is looking like it will be kept. What remains is that some news outlets are reporting her real, non-performing, name, but those that are have been found to lie about interviewing her, been tabloids, unreliable blogs, and opinion pieces. There are now some exceptions posted at seen in a new section of the talk page, two days after an RfC was closed advising against adding the name for now.

We might be near a tipping point, but I think we should err to caution.

Could uninvolved editors please look at sources presented in this section, and help determine if the threshold for including her name has been met? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Here's a good source for you. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/mar/12/duke-university-freshman-porn-star-graduated-from/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources that may meet the threshold

This area is just for posting reliable sources that likely meet the threshold for including her legal name

Uninvolved editors' comments

There is no doubt the subjects legal name is well sourced, so I fail to see any apparent reason why it can't be included in the article, as is the case with most porn bios. Is there a specific privacy concern? I note that the subject has made several media appearances related to this "outing" FWIW, so it makes reconciling the subjects wish for privacy against promotion an editorial call.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Knox has chosen to use a pseudonym when telling her story. She has also reported threats and bullying.[1]. WP:BLPNAME is pretty clear here - the reasons for not printing her name far outweigh any informative value that readers might gain from knowing her name.GabrielF (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that unless Knox has been bandying her real name about, it's not appropriate to mention it in the article even if it can be traced back to a reliable source. I think it's clear that her preference is to be known by the pseudonym, and adding the real name doesn't provide any great service to the reader in understanding the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

What is the encyclopedic value in adding her name? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some editors think that we should add it because it is all over the news. What we don't know is how those news sites got her name, as it is very possible that they are regurgitating other news reports, which originated from tabloid information. Until she uses her name officially, there is nothing gained from posting her name here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for inclusion at this time, but that is quite nonsensical. We accept information from reliable sources, because they are reliable. An organization like the Seattle Times is quite capable of determining a porn actors real name in several ways that we as editors are not permitted to do; the most obvious is checking the custodial records of films that are required to be documented by US law. Your opinion of what is to be gained by using her name is just that, an opinion, which apparently differs from super reliable sources like the LA times.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this issue warrants discussion. I tend to agree with GabrielF and question the encyclopedic value of including her real name but I also think Two kinds of pork has a point. If highly reliable sources find giving her real name worthwhile shouldn't WP follow the sources? It looks like a clash of policies but if enough RS publish it I think it should be included. I don't know what the threshold is. I think we should see how much importance the RS give it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a general misapprehension here that if something is in a reliable source we must include it in WP; that is not the case, please read WP:BLP. It is not our job to out people and if the real name is not widely known and there is the possibility that the person concerned does not want it to be freely available then we should not include it.

If the name is widely known or it is clear that the person concerned does not care then it is just a piece of general information that can be included. We are encyclopedia writers not investigative journalists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Knox has comfortably talked about personal aspects of herself, but has explicitly avoided naming herself, and expressed privacy concerns for her, and her family. She has also shared details about the many personal threats she has gotten, including attacks, support for her rape, and death threats. If that is not a textbook case of reasons for Wikipedia to avoid doing real world harm I'm not sure what is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan's comments are pretty much my big reason why I'm choosing to hold her name back until we have more confirmation in the more reliable of reliable sources. The LAT source is a good step in this direction. I'm worried about the potential real life harm it could do to her, plus there's the fact that she has requested that nobody use her name. There's also a problem with verification, as we need to be very, very sure that this name has been properly checked by any of the sources listing it. Now here's a thought: does anyone know if there's a way we can contact Ms Knox and ask her outright what her thoughts are on this? I don't do Twitter or Tumblr, so I have no way of contacting her through that and by large don't know how to do PMs through those sites. (I also do most of my editing at work or school, so I wouldn't be able to look at her pages for obvious reasons.) I really think that for right now we should continue to leave her name out. I think Kevin put it best on the talk page for Knox. If we use it and we're proven wrong, we'll look like idiots because we didn't wait for enough confirmation. If we do use it and eventually it's proven right beyond a reasonable doubt later, we'll still look like idiots because Knox has openly and repeatedly asked for people to not use her real name, nor has she openly confirmed it. The closest we've come to a truly legitimate source is the Daily Mail article, which is pretty much a tabloid. Everything else seems to be pulling from the DM article and the forums that are tossing her name about. So far most of the press has kept from listing her real name. I really think that we should wait a little more and wait for the news to grow more lax with their choice to hold back from using her real name. We gain nothing at this stage from listing it here. Sure, we can argue that we're an encyclopedia and that we should cover everything uncensored and that not listing it will make us seem ineffective, but at the same time using it without at least waiting a while to get more confirmation from more reliable RS makes us look a little rash and quite frankly, a little bit like we're jerks. I say we play the waiting game. Eventually more places will start using Knox's real name and then we don't have to worry about potential news articles going "Knox has openly requested that nobody use her name and has refused to publicly confirm rumors that she is ___________, despite places like the Daily Mail and Wikipedia stating that she is __________". We really wouldn't gain any benefit from listing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Same here. It boils down to the fact that her name hasn't been properly confirmed yet and that it adds little or nothing to the article. If we publish her name or if we're wrong in terms of name or timing it can have huge ramifications for her. There is no rush to add her name or other personal details that makes identification easier until we have good sources that explicitly states how they got her name or if they talked to her. Bjelleklang - talk 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a matter of how reliably we can confirm her real name it is a matter of whether she wants it widely publicised and what harm disregarding this wish may do. This is a core component of WP:BLP Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article should be deleted (and I hope it is) per WP:PORNBIO, WP:BLP1E, WP:SENSATION, WP:DOGBITESMAN, and WP:EVENTCRIT. If it is kept, unless something changes, we should not print her "real" name, even if there's "proper confirmation". Sportfan5000 and Martin Hogbin have it exactly right. As I wrote at AfD, we have a responsibility to avoid participating in her outing. Lagrange 613 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gonzaga Preparatory School‎

Posting of her as an alumni on Gonzaga Preparatory School‎ is taking place. To me this feels like an end run of sorts. It effectively makes identifying her real name much easier, it serves no real purpose on the Gonzaga Preparatory School‎ article, or her own biography at this point. I've removed it once but will rely on others to decide if it crosses the line. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it as well for the same reasons. Bjelleklang - talk 07:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Claims not supported directly by reliable sources

[2] shows me removing material which does not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. One term "slut shaming" does appear as a comment to a blog,but that does not seem to be usable. Collect (talk)

Your assumptions of bad faith are astounding.

she's also been mercilessly trolled - or ‘slut shamed’, as several resulting comment pieces have named the vitriol - for her chosen method of financing her education.(Belle Knox: How the porn star student from Duke University became bigger than Justin Bieber)

Every other word comes from reliable sources as well. I wouldn't have used them if they didn't. I'd appreciate you reverting yourself, but based on my past experiences I see that as unlikely, even though I was directly addressing another, very similar-acting editor's constant insinuation that Miss Knox's death threats cannot be verified, and your assertion that she's making too much a fuss over all those peaky threats of violence, harassment and death threats, among other allegations. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Paywalled material is notoriously hard to verify -- and you provide the only source using the term and ascribing it to "media outlets" in general -- you have, in fact, s single paywalled source which does not say what you appear to think it does. Sorry -- Wikipedia has this very annoying requirement that contentious claims have strong reliable sources behind them for any BLP -- and the fact is that "reading between the lines" and ascribing general opinions to "media sources" which reflect a single article in a single source does not fly. The actual source is an opinion piece in The Guardian [3] and as such is an opinion of the "director of the Ethical Porn Partnership and author of Bound To You. " (a former professional dominatrix) and not a "fact" to be stated in Wikipedia's voice (thanks for showing me where to look for the "actual source.") Perhaps next time you will look at the "actual source" for claims? Collect (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You have an odd way of apologizing. I'll accept this as your best try. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this reliable source provided by Sportsfan5000 supports the exact language he cited, and it is not paywalled. Even if it were paywalled—which it's not—we don't reject paywalled sources. So you're wrong about the source being paywalled, and you're wrong about the policy that would hypothetically apply if it were paywalled. And you're trumpeting your erroneous views in a highly patronizing tone. I think that's why Sportsfan5000 is irritated with you.

Separately, the Guardian piece meets WP:RSOPINION, which doesn't contain an exception for opinion pieces authored by professional dominatrixes (dominatrices?) FWIW, though, I agree with you that the entire article should be deleted as a canonical example of WP:BLP1E. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Independent is definitely paywalled -- it asks for 99 cents on my computer -- so I trust you would accept that as a fact. Meanwhile Sportfan5000 has been found to be a sock of a banned user at this point in any case. Collect (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Independent is most certainly not paywalled. The source indicated above by Mastcell is eminently clickable. Perhaps your computer has been taken over by aliens. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. Can we talk about something else now? Jinkinson talk to me 05:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Lagrange 613 06:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass BLP violation, potential libel in List of Bohemian Club members

The Bohemian Grove is a highly controversial group. Insinuations on the Bohemian Grove page indicate that men run around naked in the woods together and are homosexuals. That's why I'm disturbed by the List of Bohemian Club members page. The page provides no sources for dozens of the alleged "members", and also lists as members those who merely gave a lecture at the Grove but are not members.

The page was created and largely edited by User:Binksternet (he has made 82 edits while the second closest user has made 8). Can an admin intervene and delete (or conform to RS standards) this potentially libelous page? Binksternet should also be sanctioned for unacceptable mass-breach of BLP policy.

Note, I crossed the above because this is the wrong forum for requesting user sanctions, even though they are richly deserved in this case. The BLP violation and mass-libel is the more pertinent issue. Steeletrap (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet has no responsibility whatsoever for the addition of material by other editors. If you see a problem, you're welcome to fix it yourself. For requests re sanctions against another editor, this is not the right place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is immense. No one user can fix it. I am disappointed by your apparent indifference to the mass BLP violation and potential libel on the page (which is a much more relevant issue than punishing Binksternet's for adding inadequate sources). Steeletrap (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you currently fixing it? If not, whose indifference is it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to the controversial nature of the group, and where the Grove article 'indicate(s) that men run around naked in the woods together and are homosexuals'? I'm having a hard time seeing the libel. JNW (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Directly from the Bohemian Grove article: "The Bohemian club! Did you say Bohemian club? That's where all those rich Republicans go up and stand naked against redwood trees, right? I've never been to the Bohemian club but you oughta go. It'd be good for you. You'd get some fresh air."—President Bill Clinton to a heckler[39]

"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time—the Easterners and the others come there—but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it's just terrible! I mean I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."—President Richard M. Nixon on the Watergate tapes, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953.[17][40] Steeletrap (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. I think it's fairly clear that both are hyperbolic statements, and neither say that men run around naked in the woods and are homosexuals. The only credible mention of graphic behavior I found was that rich men like to pee in the woods. It's a long stretch from there to libel. JNW (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, of course unsourced content ought to be removed, with or without BLP concerns. There are also a lot of redlinks on the list, so they can probably go, too. But it is amusing to read the two Presidents' comments, one glib and referring to the members as conservatives, the other paranoid and suggesting unclean liberals. JNW (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This BLP/N report looks like an outgrowth of the Austrian Economics dispute that is currently before the Arbitration Committee. Steeletrap and Binksternet have been opponents in that dispute and are both parties to that case; and this edit summary by Steeletrap, right before this BLP/N report, makes it clear that this is tied to the ongoing conflict in that topic. If no clear BLP violations are present in the List of Bohemian Club members page, I recommend this be closed and any editor behavior issues deferred to Arbcom for resolution. alanyst 15:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So this is WP:POINTY. Recommendation seconded. JNW (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're both being petty and appear indifferent to mass BLP violations (any unsourced material about BLPs violates policy, particularly regarding membership of controversial group). The insinuations from the former Presidents provide ample reason to make sure no one is erroneously listed as a member of the Grove. That you subjectively deem the Grove not to be controversial doesn't change the fact that RS do.

For instance, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Grove was subject to substantial public criticism in the early 1990s. The White House insisted that public criticism over Clinton aid David Gergen's membership in the Grove had nothing to do with his eventual resignation from the Grove, but it's clear that a controversy arose. Gergen also told the Washington Times that he no longer wanted to go to the Grove because he didn't 'want to run around naked in the woods'.

Leaving Binksternet out of it, as I've agreed to do, should put POINTY concerns to rest. But ignoring these problems because of alleged (unproven) personal motivations is disrespectful of the community's policies and norms. Steeletrap (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Steeltrap, a simple question: what action regarding these alleged libels had you taken prior to raising this matter here? I can see no evidence of you either editing the articles ~~nor raising the matter on any article talk page~~ . What was stopping you from doing so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If nothing else, there was the opportunity to call several editors petty, indifferent and disrespectful. JNW (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted a notice to the talk page weeks ago (which Andy didn't notice because he was too focused on attacking me to glance at the talk page) which was dismissed by Binksternet. I didn't edit the article because the task appeared overwhelming. There are dozens and dozens of unsourced or poorly sourced "members" listed on the page. I have done my part by posting here.

Also, how exactly are my shortcomings relevant to this issue? The focus here appears to making digs at me, rather than addressing the clear-cut BLP violations on these pages. The sole question should be: "Does this page have BLP violations"? The answer to that question seems to be "who cares"? It's petty behavior like this that makes me fear for the future of the community. Steeletrap (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get help with BLP violations, then make a post that discusses only the aspects of the article that need fixing. Instead of doing that, you made a post here that included a call for sanctions against another editor. This has naturally led people to wonder what your real interest is -- and it hasn't been hard to determine that. So if you're wondering how things got off track here, go find a mirror. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Binksternet early on and haven't spoken about it since. Who cares what my motivations/shortcomings are? Who cares what your motivations/shortcomings are? Why can't we discuss the BLP issue? Steeletrap (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: The list based on the Bohemian Club's self-published "Constitution and By-Laws" including members is a "primary source" and unless a reliable secondary source publishes a name in a list I consider that the material fails WP:RS at the start. Collect (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the BLP allegation is pretty weak. The presidents comments are obviously making fun of the group. But there is no serious allegation that it is a club for homosexuals. The insults called the group "faggoty", "gay" etc. That was a fairly common insult for quite a long time about anything people thought was dumb or foolish, and reading it as an actual accusation of homosexuality is quite contrived. The Running around naked in the woods, primal drum circle type thing is a well worn stereotype of many mens groups and has been parodied all over the place. get a grip. That said membership in the group should be sourced, but that is because of basic WP:V, not a libel WP:BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, please see the David Gergen content above. Doesn't the fact that there was a public controversy over the Grove make you concerned about listing people as members without adequate sources? Steeletrap (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Focusing strictly on the BLP question: Ascribing membership in an organization to a living person is certainly subject to BLP rules, and so with respect to this list of Bohemian Club members, each item in the list corresponding to a living person (and, really, whether living or dead shouldn't matter per WP:V) should be backed by a reliable source. If there are any items in the list that are unsourced or poorly sourced, go ahead and remove them; the burden is then on the person who wishes to restore them to locate reliable sources for them. However, I don't see a prima facie case that membership is inherently controversial to the point that adding a name without a source is tantamount to libel. A few quotes that cast a negative light on the organization are not enough; otherwise the same charge could be leveled on anyone who added unsourced names to lists of members of the Boy Scouts of America, the Democratic Party (United States), or Greenpeace, which have all been subject to negative characterizations by notable figures.

TL;DR: go ahead and remove unsourced names from the list but characterizing it as "potential libel" is inflammatory. alanyst 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you have conceded the BLP problem. Please note my deliberate use of the adverb "potentially" to modify "libelous." Steeletrap (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the gergen thing, the NYT eventually issued a correction on that point, specifically the "naked in the woods" thing http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CEED61131F932A25755C0A965958260 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42, that "correction" doesn't have to do with my original statement, which came from Gergen himself and not the Times. Moreover, the Times doesn't concede the statement about running naked in the woods was false. It just says it should have provided a source for that claim and didn't, and notes that a spokesman for the Grove denies the charges. In any case, what's relevant is that there was a public controversy about the group (it appeared in several newspapers according to the Times), and that it was subject to unflattering rumors. David Gergen was forced to resign from it because of the controversy. This is sufficient for a BLP and even a libel concern. Steeletrap (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the WP:BLP issues raised here, I've removed all names lacking a citation. Though BLP policy clearly doesn't apply to all those previously named (many are dead), I can see no legitimate grounds for including any names without a reference - if it isn't referenced, how are we supposed to be able to verify it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alanyst expressed the same thought I had when I saw this discussion crop up on my Notifications, that it was a POINTy disruption from Steeletrap who has previously been in conflict with me on topics relating to Austrian Economics. At the Bo Club list talk page, I invited Steeletrap to help sort out the perceived sourcing problems, but Steeletrap did nothing. Here, Nomoskedacity expressed the same thought I had, that Steeletrap appears to be less concerned about fixing perceived problems than about linking them to me. AndyTheGrump quickly fixed the problems, so this discussion should be closed with its explicitly stated problem fixed. The undercurrent of Steeletrap hoping to get some flung mud to stick to me must be seen as a failed attempt. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a mistake to raise alleged behavior issues on the wrong forum (you can call that a "failed attempt" if you want). However, the longstanding BLP issues with the page, regarding poor sources and unsourced content, are clear. I'm glad the unsourced material has been addressed but the poorly sourced material (e.g. from primary sources) also needs to be removed, per Collect's remarks. I agree that we should not discuss the conduct of any user specifically, but the BLPN posting should not be closed until we address the poorly sourced content. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The only names it seems likely to be problematic per WP:BLP concerns are those cited to a 1960 Bohemian Club document (other primary sources date from 1904 and 1922). There is nothing preventing you removing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Andy. For the rest, the sources may be OK but they are not used properly. In other words, they are used to establish "membership" in the Grove when, in some cases, they only indicate that there was one visit or speech to the Grove. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There is still nothing preventing you removing poorly-sourced material. Come to that, there is nothing to prevent you nominating the article for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Doubt that would succeed, but we should remove the redlinked names. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Through various edits, I just removed dozens of names whose art was displayed at the Grove, but have no other connection. They were all listed as "members." As I say, given the public controversy surrounding the group (which led a Clinton Administration official to publicly repudiate it) this sort of thing is potentially libelous and an egregious BLP violation (or, if they're all dead, at least a violation of WP:V). Steeletrap (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your conclusion relies on the assumption that membership the Bohemian Club is controversial to its own members. The assumption is severely flawed. Do you know of any 'outed' member who has denied membership? If you can find even one it will be an edge case. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't directly engage Binksternet, per a voluntary IBAN in Austrian econ sanctions. What I can say is that Newt Gingrich adamantly denies membership and David Gergen refuses to discuss the activities of the Grove, and is offended and defensive when the question is raised. Moreover, WP:BLP and (in the case of the dead) WP:V still must be followed even with respect to uncontroversial issues. The article as it currently stands is riddled with primary sources, unreliable secondary sources, and misinterpretations of RS (e.g. inferring that a group of artists whose paintings were exhibited at the Grove were/are all "members" of the Grove). I spent a lot of time this morning trying to fix this stuff but everything I did was reverted. Steeletrap (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The OP writes: "Insinuations on the Bohemian Grove page indicate that men run around naked in the woods together and are homosexuals. That's why I'm disturbed by the List of Bohemian Club members page." I have to ask how this discussion became so long with such an offensively worded and clearly opinionated beginning. I'll read up a bit...but so far what I am seeing is this editor "just doesn't like it".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just odd. "Offensively worded"? I'm just describing the allegations against the group.

And yes, I am "opinionated" insofar as I, like every OP here, think BLP policy is being violated. (your view (based, as you admit, on inadequate reading of the page in question) that this is purely an OP "doesn't like it" posting is also "opinionated"). Steeletrap (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your POV is obvious and the whole purpose of your initial posting was that, to be called a member of a group of "insinuationed" naked homosexuals disturbs you. And your comprehension of my words is way off. I said I would read up a bit...on this thread. Your continued assumptions are insulting and purposely aimed at your own moral ideology which, frankly I don't care about. Your attempts to peg the Club as a group of Homosexuals and why it disturbs you is based on separate articles, one being a single event held once a year. To be clear...I have more than an "adequate" understanding of the subject. I have contributed to the Bohemian Grove article and was, in fact my first encounter with Binksternet, who I think has done a rather good job with their contributions to the article. And what kind of editor makes a voluntary ban and then attacks an article where one of the major contributors is someone you can't interact with?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm transgender so I hardly think there is anything wrong with being gay (or, for that matter, running naked in the woods). I think you misunderstand what "libelous" means. You probably should brush up on it; it's pretty easy to understand even for us legal laypeople, and is important to learn about because it occurs fairly often on WP.

It is libelous to publish an article that says (as a matter of fact) someone is gay who the author has no good reason is gay, and is in fact not. What matters is if someone endures harm from the false statement made about her or him, not whether that statement would be 'bad' if it were true. We agree there is nothing wrong with being gay. Steeletrap (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark clearly understands the key element of the dispute, that Steeletrap intends to harm me with this discussion, despite the claim that there is a self-imposed interaction ban preventing Steeletrap from talking to me. It's contradictory and silly. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the red herring issue of gays, Phillips writes a whole lot about the Bohemian Club but he says nothing about members being gay or homosexual. He dismisses an "outsider" myth about the Bohemian Grove which holds that the waiters are gay and they provide sex to members after hours. From what I have personally seen of the Bohemian Club, which is limited to impressions taken in the 1980s and '90s, the membership includes a small percentage of homosexuals, probably the same as found in the general population. When I worked occasionally as an audio engineer at the Bohemian Grove and Club in 1990–93, none of the people who seemed gay to me was a captain of industry or a political figure. Rather, the gay men were almost all found in the arts: costumers, musicians, etc. None of these men were notable by Wikipedia standards, so it is likely that the list article with all its names of Bo Club members contains no gays. In any case, the club membership does not worry very much about this issue, it being composed primarily of heterosexual men. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees

Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of IP accounts battling over content with BLP ramifications. Could use some eyes on this, and a lever to pry them apart. JNW (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked both of them for edit warring, and will keep an eye on the IPs and the article. Bjelleklang - talk 09:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. JNW (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reblocked both IPs yesterday for a week after both started a new edit-revert cycle without attempting to discuss any issue. Bjelleklang - talk 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregg Easterbrook

Hi Wiki editors,

I am Gregg Easterbrook. I do not object to anything in the entry under my name. But if I had my druthers, I would replace it with a much shorter, simpler entry and cite secondary sources.

I would be happy to propose such an entry myself then transmit it to the appropriate editor/editors. But I don't know how to do so.

If any editor could offer me advice, I would be grateful. I note the instruction not to post an email here. My email can be found at http://greggeasterbrook.com/contact.html

Thank you -- Gregg Easterbrook

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg Easterbrook (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to help you. Please click on the following link: User talk:Gregg Easterbrook#Request for assistance --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The BLP has been fixed up, and we're awaiting any further feedback from the article subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How to fix biographies of living persons issues

[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Haworth_Ltd

Since that seems to be about a concern that closed in the 1950s, and was founded by a person who died in the 19th century, I can't see any BLP issues. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Docking

Hi, I have been attempting to update Dr. Jeffrey Docking's wikipedia page several times. I am told that it will continue to be reverted, however I am pulling the content directly from his bio page at adrian.edu. Can you assist? Again, this is citing Jeffrey Docking

The current content is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcomptonac (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're taking material directly from the Adrian website, then it's WP:COPYVIO. It also appears you are removing information, not just updating it. If there's a specific inaccuracy in the current version, please tell us what it is here, or on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

LaMarr Woodley

LaMarr Woodley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LaMarr Woodley is incorrectly reported to be a defensive end for the Oakland Raiders. He is an Outside Linebacker. See Oakland Raiders Player Roster: http://www.raiders.com/team/roster.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.136.213 (talk • contribs)

Corrected the infobox. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Otis D. Wright II

Can someone look at this - I don't have time. Might be valid but not well described and unsourced, or invalid.

There's a "notable cases" section just titled "Defendants", that's just a list of 3 names or aliases, and allegations of findings - no indication if this is a poor but legitimate description of some unnamed notable case, or not valid. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Abby Martin

User:Yambaram is violating WP:BLP by turning a biographical article on Abby Martin into a poorly sourced, critical attack on her full of unsubstantiated opinion, gossip, and rumor.[5][6] Per the BLP policy, I have removed it, but since this user is a SPA solely concerned with pushing a singular POV, I have brought this problem to the BLP board. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note, I've left my reasoning for removing the specific content and sources here. I cannot imagine any scenario where Yambaram's edits are deemed acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I note much was properly removed, but in some cases opinions from notable sources, properly cited as opinion, may be used in BLPs and I think some of the bathwater removal got rid of the baby as well. Collect (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss specific sources here or on the talk page. I'll be offline for a while.Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited the article in accordance to the WP:BLP guidelines, and added valid inforamtion to the "reception and criticism" section with reliable sources. Saying I'm an WP:SPA here is a personal attack, especially considering the fact that I've created dozens and edited hundreds of different articles about movies, websites, musicians, actors, philanthropists, sports, science, education, science, companies, bands, and yes, politics too. Anyone is welcome to take a look for themselves, or I could provide you the diffs my myself. 'Viriditas' has not provided any legitimate reason for the removal of properly cited content by the The Algemeiner. As 'Collect' rightly said, "in some cases opinions from notable sources, properly cited as opinion, may be used in BLPs". Apparently, according to 'Viriditas' every source that criticizes Abby Martin is automatically not neutral or notable. I'd appreciate it if an admin could take a look at this issue please, thanks in advance. Yambaram (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In this edit, Yambaram writes in Wikipedia's voice that Martin "has a history of spewing anti-Israel propaganda." (It was subsequently removed by another editor.) If Yambaram adds material in that mode again, I will propose a BLP topic ban at ANI (and I encourage other editors to do the same if they notice it first). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I really did not mean to write it in Wikipedia's voice, it was a minor accident which I fixed here before even seeing this comment by 'Nomoskedasticity'. I added a lot of criticism to that section as you can see, and properly sourced everything using many quotation marks, but missed that one sentence. It was a mistake of course, I wouldn't be stupid to even take the risk of doing it on purpose. If anyone here would like to discuss the subject, please go to Talk:Abby Martin#The deleted section. Yambaram (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What you consider "properly sourced", I consider rumor, innuendo, gossip, out of context quoting, and outright attack pieces by her enemies. Martin has criticized 10,000 things, with Israel amounting to only 1 of 10,000 of those things. It seems like you have taken exception to this criticism and have tried to inject undue weight into the article. By way of illustrating how to properly do this, please look at the article Paul Conrad that I wrote, and which is now up for GAN. As an editorial cartoonist, Conrad criticized thousands of topics over a career lasting 50 years. Along the way, he upset just about everyone, including the Jewish community, when he drew cartoons about the IP conflict. After examining all of the sources on this topic in depth, you can see how I handled it by giving it one sentence in Conrad's biography. After reviewing the literature on the subject, the best I could come up with was, "...members of the Jewish community of Los Angeles took issue with Conrad's portrayal of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." It took me days, possibly even a week to come up with that, because when you put the evidence in perspective, it was almost meaningless. Someone didn't like one of his cartoons and accused him of being anti-Israel/anti-Semitic simply because he showed sympathy and compassion for the Palestinians and portrayed Israel as the aggressor. Whether it is true or not, it's his opinion as an editorial cartoonist. It's not Wikipedia's role to facilitate an attack on him for doing his job simply because a few people expressed outrage over his opinion. The proper application of due weight when given his fifty year career offending every special interest group on the planet was 18 words, no more, no less. One can even argue that it wasn't important enough to mention, but the reason I decided it was important is because that particular dispute played a significant role in determining the location of one of his famous public sculptures. If that dispute had not happened, it would have been located in a completely different city, so it had an impact on his work. In the same way, given Martin's career, and her role as an investigative reporter who critiques power and influence, and is vocally anti-war and pro-peace, you should give your criticism the same amount of due weight using the best sources you can find. Finally, I would like to point out that Abby Martin was mercilessly attacked on her YouTube channel several weeks ago because she ran a segment that portrayed Israel in a positive light. In the last month, several Wikipedia editors have attacked her in turn for similar things. So, she isn't just being attacked by one side, or for what she actually says, she's being attacked by people on all sides with competing agendas. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You can consider this information however you like, I have no problem with that, but it won't change the fact that an The Algemeiner article is worth a mention. Your claim that Martin "criticized 10,000 things, with Israel amounting to only 1 of 10,000", besides being factually wrong, is irrelevant - I added criticism ABOUT Marin, not criticism MADE BY her. I've Google-searched criticism about Martin's life from as many sources as possible and took the reliable and notable ones, of which a few happened to be related to her claims about Israel. There's nothing wrong with it. On the nice article you wrote, Paul Conrad, there's a section titled "controversies" (as opposed to "criticism" on Martin's article), so if you want Martin's criticism section to be titled "controversies" then that's fine. You must understand that such a section is not intended to provide an overall coverage about Matin's outside perception, its PURPOSE it to provide criticism/controversies (possibly followed by Matin's replies to those allegations, which I did by citing HER Twitter response to some allegations.) You're talking about how you trimmed down information on Conrad's controversies, saying "when you put the evidence in perspective, it was almost meaningless." That statement is WP:OR - because if a NYT article for example mentions criticism about an Israeli policy, neither you nor I are eligible to decide if that criticism is based on "real evidence" or not - if it's a NYT article then it's not undue weight and I'll have to cope with it. You should also acknowledge that if Conrad was accused of being anti-Israel/anti-Semitic by in an article by some notable news agency/source, then that journalist's opinion in most cases is probably entitled to be mentioned on Conrad's article. Just like a praise or admiration of him should be given the proper mention. You're basically saying that no matter if any criticism is true or not and regardless of who says it, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, or as you wrote it: "Whether it is true or not, it's his opinion as an editorial cartoonist. It's not Wikipedia's role to facilitate an attack on him for doing his job simply because a few people expressed outrage over his opinion." NO - these "attacks" should be given the proper weight, and if what you said was the case, then Wikipedia would've probably been empty of criticism, except for extreme cases: You said that considering Conrad's lifelong experience, no more than 18 words of criticism should be allowed. This claim is according to you, and is obviously not policy-based. If you're able to acknowledge that "One can even argue that it [this 18-word-criticism] wasn't important enough to mention", then you must not disagree that one can argue the opposite. Also, criticism does not have to have a direct impact on one's work in order to be mentioned. Wikipedia is not censored, and we aren't the ones to judge whether criticism (or praise) about Martin's is JUSTIFIED OR NOT, we need to follow what the guidelines (WP:BLP as you said) tell us. She can be pro-whatever she wants and as good hearted as she would like to be, but again that doesn't matter much on Wikipedia. You're saying that Martin was also attacked by the "other side", great, I encourage you to find a reliable source that discusses it and add it to the proper section in the article, at your best discretion of course. I corrected minor stuff on the criticism section I expanded yesterday. To sum it up, our disagreement comes down to which amount of due weight we should give to the sources that criticize her, so let's continue discussing it on Martin's talk page. Yambaram (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion needs to remain open on this noticeboard based on your above response. Almost every point you've made is demonstrably incorrect. We simply don't write biography articles in the way that you propose. You did not seem to fully comprehend the example of Paul Conrad I presented by way of analogy, which is partly my fault since I didn't have enough time to explain it. Briefly, the analogy has nothing to do with the section title of "controversies" as you wrongly observe. It has to do with the fact that multiple reliable sources unconnected to the controversies, reported on the controversies in a neutral way, without any connection to the disputes. The sources you've used on Abby Martin fail to do this and in fact do the opposite; they manufacture a controversy where none exists. By way of another example, I will attempt to explain once again. You should know, however, that your statements about the length and context of the Conrad controversy are just wrong. It has no real place in the Conrad biography, and is discussed in the context of the actual dispute in the proper sub-article, Chain Reaction (sculpture)#Proposal. Again, by way of analogy, that criticism reads:

Conrad expressed interest in building the sculpture in either Beverly Hills or Santa Monica. In 1988, he created a two foot model of the sculpture and proposed his work to the Santa Monica Art Commission. He showed off a model of the proposed sculpture to the Beverly Hills Fine Arts Committee in early 1989. The committee, appointed by the Beverly Hills City Council, deliberated Conrad's proposed sculpture for three months. During that time, Conrad was attacked as an anti-Semite by several residents of Beverly Hills because of his recent editorial cartoons depicting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the intifada. The Beverly Hills committee eventually turned down the proposal for the Chain Reaction sculpture on April 12, 1989, citing the lack of a suitable site in Beverly Hills that could accommodate the structure. "It is a piece of monumental proportions that needs a very large, large area," committee chairwoman Ellen Byrens told the Los Angeles Times.

Why would I include this in the main Paul Conrad biography article? In the same way, extensive criticism of Abby Martin's show, Breaking the Set, would best appear in that sub-article or in the RT parent article, provided it is reliably sourced, which I and others maintain, is not. Instead, you've chosen to devote half of Martin's article to discussing her criticism of Israel, and you've used partisan and unreliable sources to do it. That's not acceptable. In any case, contrary to your non-neutral portrayal of Abby Martin, Paul Conrad was involved in a documented and publicized dispute with the community of Beverly Hills. This dispute appeared in numerous sources that had no self-interest or connection to the people involved. They reported that members of the Jewish community objected to Conrad's proposal for placing a peace statue in their town because, according to them, Conrad's editorial cartoons criticized Israel, and they didn't want his artwork as a result. The city council eventually turned him down for other reasons, but there was public pressure from the aforementioned group. As a result, Conrad's statue was proposed in Santa Monica instead, where it was accepted and remains until this day. Ironically, the biggest defender of Conrad's statue is a Jewish activist by the name of Jerry Rubin, so the Jewish community of Beverly Hills does not speak for all Jews. In any case, the controversy was notable to include in the Conrad article not because he criticized Israel nor because he was criticized by Jewish groups. The controversy was notable to include because it directly influenced the outcome of his work and because it was neutrally reported by sources that had no connection to the controversy. In other words, it was a significant controversy with reliable sources. You do not, however, have a similar situation with Abby Martin. The sources you have offered are trying to create a controversy where none exists, in order to malign the subject of the article. Further, the sources are intimately connected to the subject of the criticism, making them not just unreliable, but lacking independence and neutrality. This attempt to manufacture controversy is a POV pushing tactical strategy intended for the sole purpose of denigrating a BLP, not for accurately representing an important or significant controversy or criticism covered by independent sources. That's the distinction. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sources I provided do not fail to do what you claim. Find me a policy that supports your statement that there must be "multiple reliable sources unconnected to the controversies, reported on the controversies in a neutral way, without any connection to the disputes." Also, your example about Conrad's article is not helping much in this case - I'm not arguing that each criticism about her should be given that much coverage, but am saying that the proper ones should be quickly summarized, which is what I attempted to do. I didn't try to turn Martin's article into an anti-Israel piece as you so easily imply I did. You also claimed that I am an "SPA", and when I proved you wrong you did not take it back, so I expect you to do it now. In fact, the requirements you're making for the inclusion of criticism about Martin indicate a POV-pushing on your side. You're claiming that for for every little criticism mentioned, there must must multiple sources discussing the subject, all of with which must have no connection to the subject, and the criticism must have had direct influence on the subject's life. Oh, and you say they must be "neutral", in your view. Because in my view they some of the sources I provided clearly have a place in the article, given the proper weight and attribution. This criticism still comes from reliable sources, and even if it's some "biased" opinion piece, it should be considered for use. The high bar you're putting here seems like a way to filter any criticism of Martin. You siad "The sources you have offered are trying to create a controversy where none exists [that's not true, there was a controversy], in order to malign the subject of the article. Further, the sources are intimately connected to the subject of the criticism" - of course they are connected to subject of criticism, and that doesn't mean they can't be given the proper weight in that article. It is that simply. They could be cited, and their connection with Israel may be mentioned as well. And that's what some user suggested on the article's talk page. The fact that they may lack independence or neutrality does not rule out the option of using them, since even an opinion piece has an undisputed importance if it comes from one of one of Israel's major independent news services. I'll soon try to revise that criticism content and will then post it in the discussion again. Yambaram (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

High bar ? Hardly. Arutz Sheva is garbage, so the bar isn't very high in that case. It's the epitome of a highly partisan, highly questionable source, promoting the fringe agenda of the Israeli settlement movement. It's exactly the kind of worthless, partisan nonsense that brings WP:ARBPIA related content down to the level of the cesspool in which much of the debate is conducted by advocates who think attacking people is just fine, business as usual. It's worse than the tabloids people try to prevent keep out of BLPs, on a par with WorldNetDaily. Bringing that belligerent culture here to an encyclopedia only makes sense to agenda driven editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd

I am of the opinion that there is far too much weight given to the "Plagiarism accusation" section and content in Maureen Dowd. I tried removing it several years ago but I was reverted. The article consists of approximately 913 words, of which 193 are devoted to a minor incident regarding an accusation of plagiarism. This seems excessive. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The accusation is a single short well-sourced paragraph at this point in time, and does not appear to remotely hit "undue". Collect (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. An almost 200 word accusation of wrongdoing with no outcome is completely out of proportion to the scope and tenor of a biographical article. The "incident" was neither important nor significant in her life or career. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably change the header from "Plagiarism accusation" to "Attribution issues". But the content looks brief, neutral, and well-sourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. 20 words about her Pulitzer-winning work, 200 about not properly crediting a paragraph on a minor column is grossly disproportionate. Especially when her supposed "victim" took this position: "I generally think we're too quick to pull the trigger with charges of plagiarism. I haven't said anything about this because I really didn't think I had anything to add. Whatever the mechanics of how it happened, I never thought it was intentional. Dowd and the Times quickly corrected it, which I appreciated. And for me, that's pretty much the end of it." This probably would have a place in a much lengthier, more detailed evaluation of her writing, but it quite clearly should not be the only, or even a prominent example of, substantive commentary on her work (as opposed to her style). This is a textbook example of undue weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this one as well, but your point is compelling. I am normally quite willing to see documented plagiarism covered, but in this instance the current treatment seems all out of proportion in a balanced consideration of her life & work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If plagiarism had been actually established, that's one thing. But here no one has disproved her explanation, which was a mere failure to attribute. So I remain strongly in favor of changing the heading. However, the BLP is short, and the best thing would be to expand other parts of it instead of eliminating this part....UPDATE: I went ahead and removed the header. It strikes me that there's not one word about her days as a reporter that mentions any particular article that she wrote, or any particular story she broke. I'll look around for that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Public Editor wrote about it -- meaning that it was certainly notable at the newspaper itself, and the material was emened to give credit which had not been initially given. [7] appears to mmeet WP:RS and refers to the incident as "plagiarism" (Changing Journalism Peter Lee-Wright, Angela Phillips, Tamara Witschge; Routledge, Jul 14, 2011; 192 pages). [8] ( THE FUTURE OF JOURNALISM - FRANKLIN Bob Franklin; Routledge, Sep 13, 2013; 360 pages) also clearly meets WP:RS Where the material has been mentioned in scholarly books on the topic, it does not make sense for us to totally ignore the topic, although the weight should only be a couple of sentences to cover it in a NPOV manner. I assume Routledge is considered a sufficiently reliable publisher of scholarly books, and the fact is the books state the plagiarism as fact. Redacting something which is covered by major scholarly works would seem a tad odd indeed. Collect (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She was a reporter for 21 years before becoming a columnist, but not one of her articles or scoops is described in the Wikipedia article. I think the story she was most famous for was breaking the news about Joe Biden lifting passages from Neil Kinnock. Doubtless she had other notable stories as well. If those would be included then any undue weight problems would go away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Tell Routledge that you feel they are not a reliable source publisher then. It appears to many that it is one, and that where multiple reliable sources refer to the event as "plagiarism" that it would ill suit NPOV to remove all mention of it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm arguing to keep the material, not remove it, except that the heading was simplistic so I removed it. Editors who think there's an undue weight problem ought to focus on adding material about her journalistic scoops instead of trying to remove well-sourced material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I disagree with your assertions about the notability of this claim, and you cited one source twice, failing to recognize that it was the same content published in two different books. Please pay closer attention.

To clarify, the one singular source you've cited in support of your claim mentions the Dowd incident not because it is notable—in point of fact, the source says the incident was "of no particular importance" and "of minimal significance". The source mentions the incident in order to illustrate the difference between the British and American media's handling of attribution and plagiarism issues. The source does not support the claim that the incident is historically important, and in fact, contradicts it outright.

According to Collect's source, the Dowd example is shown to be highly unusual, because in British newspapers this is an everyday occurrence and common practice. The discussion itself has a larger context, that of transparency in the media, particularly in terms of how the old media reacts to the transition into the new media. When we look at the source Collect offers, the conclusion must be clear: reliable academic sources tell us that the Dowd incident was 1) unimportant and 2) insignificant, and 3) attribution of sources is an academic practice that has not necessarily carried over to regional types of journalism, such as the kind practiced in the UK. Finally, the source tells us that 4) this discussion has less to do with Dowd and more to do with regional differences in journalistic practices and transparency.

With all in this mind, when we look at the WP:BLP policy, we are forced to conclude that due to the verifiable unimportance and insignificance of this so-called "incident", it does not even need to be mentioned, and if it is, it needs to be mentioned only briefly in proportion to the overall scope of her biography. I recommend removing it in its entirety and moving it to its more appropriate topic, such as media transparency, per the sources Collect cites up above. Verifiability is not a litmus test for notability, nor does it guarantee inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted the following two footnotes:

Philips, Angela. “Transparency and the Ethics of the New Journalism” in Changing Journalism, p. 145 (Peter Lee-Wright, et al., eds., Routledge, 2011).
Cashill, Jack. Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America's First Postmodern President, p. 89 (Simon and Schuster, 2011).

Together with the footnotes already in that part of the BLP, I think they establish substantial notability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, how do you come to the conclusion that this incident is notable when an academic journalism source says quite clearly and explicitly that the incident in question is unimportant and insignificant? Enlighten me, please. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Time Magazine does not devote an entire article to something unless it is significant. See Luscombe, Belinda. “Is Maureen Dowd Guilty of Plagiarism?”, Time Magazine (May 18, 2009): “[I]t's ironic that the Pulitzer Prize winner fumbled in this area. Back in 1987, she caught then presidential-hopeful Joe Biden borrowing heavily from a British politician's speech.” The source that you refer to was merely saying that the quote that was copied was not part of some critical point in Dowd's column. It's like if I stage an armed robbery to steal a snickers bar. The armed robbery is significant, but the snickers bar isn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your argument appeals to authority. While Time might be considered a reliable source, just because it publishes an article, doesn't mean the subject is notable for an encyclopedia. That's an entirely separate line of evaluation, often in terms called relevancy. In other words, a source can be reliable, but that has no bearing on relevancy, nor does it determine notability. The subject of the article, Maureen Dowd, is notable, but that doesn't mean the incident in the article is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In fact, Time covers trivial, popular culture articles on a daily basis. The fact that they publish such things doesn't confer notability nor does it mean inclusion is guaranteed. To reiterate, verifiability doesn't mean notability nor inclusion, and it isn't determined solely from the reliability or authority of a source. In this case, Time published a lighthearted opinion piece about the bloviating blogosphere who claimed Dowd was plagiarizing. In the second case, we have an academic source about journalism that says this incident of plagiarism was of minimal significance, not the quote itself, so you've misread the source. Read it again. In conclusion, you've offered an argument from authority and a misinterpretation of a source as evidence for notability and inclusion. I don't think that's good enough. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to authority? Isn't that what sources are for in the first place? The failure to attribute is well sourced. A brief mention is not undue.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Two Kinds of Pork. The snippet that Viriditas relies upon says "The line was of no particular importance, and, as plagiarism goes, it was of minimal significance...." The bit about "importance" refers to the line itself, not where it came from or how it was obtained. And the bit about "significance" refers to this incident in relation to other incidents of plagiarism. It's like saying, "he was rather tall for a dwarf". That's not a statement that the dwarf was tall! Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I"m not sure I follow the logic. The passage says in effect: this plagiarism incident was of minimal significance. How does that point in the source amount to grounds for including mention of the incident here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

First, that is one of several sources. Second, that source says that this was a relatively insignificant instance of plagiarism, not that it was insignificant in an absolute sense (in the latter case then that source would not have mentioned it at all instead of going on and on about it).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To V: Routledge publishes a great many books - which are all, each and individually, fully "reliable sources". But to assuage your cavil I furnish: [9] from Editor & Publisher which is a strong reliable journalism source But by mid-afternoon she was on the hot seat for using a paragraph almost word-for-word from one of the most prominent liberal bloggers, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, without attribution. Charges of "plagiarism" ensued. By early evening, Dowd had admitted wrongdoing, in an e-mail to The Huffington Post, and said she wanted to apologize to Marshall. She also said that the Times would issue a correction tomorrow -- and the copy was changed in her column to attribute the paragraph to Marshall. The only words changed from Marshall paragraph: "we were" to "the Bush crowd was." [10] states that Dowd has been accused of plagiarism in the past (1984). [11] HuffPo seems pretty sure it was "plagiarism." BTW, on Wikipedia, "failure to attribute" is pretty much a textbook definition of "plagiarism." It does not require a huge section in the BLP, but it decidedly is in the "notable and pertinent" category for any journalist. And for a professional writer "just a teensy bit plagiarizing" is quite akin to "a teensy bit pregnant" Once a writer has been shown to "fail to attribute" twice, there is a problem. The material is now found in a great many scholarly books, so the idea that it is only "minimally important" is belied by the fact that scholars have found it important. Collect (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, scholars found it important in a discussion about media transparency in the US and the UK. The passage you cite is not about Dowd. She is used as an example of how the interpretation of the academic practice of attribution is enforced in American journalism, but not in the UK. The "great many books" you referred to was one book passage cited in two different book about the same subject. As for the Editor & Publisher source you cite, that reaffirms my opinion that this was a non-notable incident. Here she has written a highly charged, critical column about the U.S. role in the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, and the entire topic is derailed by the claim that she plagiarized a blogger. She admitted she made a mistake, a correction was published, and the column was properly attributed. Now, why is this minor incident mentioned in her encyclopedia biography when the very academic journalism sources you have cited refer to it as of "minimal significance"? Currently, it reads as the last paragraph of her entire biography, making it seem like this minor, trivial, insignificant incident defines her person and her entire career. This is a violation of WP:BLP, in the same way that adding traffic violations, arrests without convictions, and allegations of criminal activity are generally prohibited in all BLP's. Dowd is not known for plagiarizing, she is known as a critic of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. Funny how this little distraction works. This trivial incident has no place in her biography and given its insignificance, its presence in the article exists for casting aspersions on her character and her role as a journalist who attacks the establishment. People make mistakes, but it is not Wikipedia's job to list those mistakes, no matter how trivial they may be. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; the reliability of a source has no bearing on whether it is used to support content. When we evaluate the sources that mention this incident, we find it is trivial, insignificant, and unrepresentative of her career. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Collect, I've added yet another footnote:

Mitchell, Greg. "UPDATE: Maureen Dowd in Hot Water, Did Not Attribute -- NYT Corrects", Editor and Publisher (May 17, 2009).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Viriditias, by raising this issue makes a point; The article is too short, considering Dowd's fruitful career. An expansion would be nice, including the ellipses gate and other reactions to her notable contributionsTwo kinds of pork (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- That still doesn't address the problem with using trivial material. Should we list the trivial mistakes made by Bush in his biography? How about Reagan? Clearly there is a double standard at work. With the war on journalists in full swing, it's open season on anyone who questions the establishment. Therefore, it is acceptable to add 200 words about a trivial, insignificant incident that has no lasting impact on her career. Writers issue retractions and corrections all the time. For the sake of accuracy, contemporary bloggers issue retractions and corrections on a daily basis—that's the benefit of online journalism! This obsession with a trivial correction by Dowd is unprecedented. It has no place on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This was more than a "trivial correction". While media critics such as Howard Kurtz find the "mistake" minor, the explanation was found to be baffling. This was widely covered and received a good deal of coverage, perhaps because she is polarizing. Regardless, it still merits a mention.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pursuant to another section of this BLPN page, I just finished overhauling the BLP of Gregg Easterbrook, who is also a frequent op-ed contributor to the NYT. There was material in there about an incident where he was accused of anti-semitism due to some remarks that he later regretted phrasing the way he did. I left it in, but briefly, and it's really hardly noticeable anymore amidst all the other positive (and accurate) material that I inserted. The same can be done with Dowd. This is not some conspiracy against her.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Random electioneering puffery posted here for no obvious reason

This notice board is not the place to post electioneering puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  Forest Minister Of U.P.  fateh Bahadur Singh

Fateh bahadur singh-A convent educated( Col. Brown Cambridge School, Dehra Dun) youthful leader, is a ex Cabinet Minister/forest minister of u.p and son of Late Legendary and popular/mass leader Mr Vir bahadur singh- Chief Minister of up.and Telecom minister-Govt of India---He started his political carrier early due to the sad demise of his father and took the oath to complete the pending developement works left by his father and work on the same ideology for the betterment of the masses and till now at the age of just 42 he has taken oath for 6 times as minister for up govt and is popularly known as the Vikas Purush in his region-In the new change of seat/parisiman he opted for Camperganj instead of his original assembly seat Paniyara, but was expelled n denied a ticket by the party at the last moment as he did not seem to have his cast votes in majorty! Well this was the time when the opponents could try to phase out such stature leader but he took the challenge on grounds of his developement image and filed the nomination as a Ncp candidate and got the maximum support from the masses.In his friends circle he is popularly known as a well calculative genious with efficient overall knowledge of all fields, who knows how n when what to do.

Mr Fateh bahadur singh has created a history by winning the election by a good margin on his own and has proved his Leadership strength/grip and popularity in masses by his developement image...We can now say that politics in India is changing and the people are looking forward towards the Youth and wants just "Developement...Developement and Developement"...and they can and do vote by rising/thinking above the old caste n creed voting process of India but only when you make them believe ! The politicians now need to understand what people really need! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsinghpinaki (talk • contribs) 07:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rattray, Lloyd Axworthy, Michael Weinrath

These three BLPs appear to be undergoing a POV treatment by new SPA users.

Jennifer Rattray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lloyd Axworthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Weinrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if there are more BLPs that should be watched. The citations may superficially support the content, but much of it seems to be POV and UNDUE. Jim1138 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I listed Rattray for discussion at AfD. Axworthy is unquestionable notable, but has some obvious coatrack problems, with inordinate space being devoted to one minor project. I'll do the cleanup. Weinrath probably meets WP:PROF, and needs some cleanup, but the paragraph about the institute is only mildly undue.I'll do some of the necessary editing.

But the anon editor is obvious inserting press releases, presumably from the university. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation with Axworthy isn't new, I removed pretty much the same questionable content a couple of years ago. It seems like everytime the article is edited, a new user shows up, but note the IP 142 that removed some of the bias content was me, I thought I was logged in but history shows I wasn't. Regardless a lot of the article has to be cleanedup, but if I do it, it's only going to be reverted by these other new editors. Cmr08 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading through recent edits made to these articles since I last posted here and the repeated removal of the AfD template added by DGG to the Rattray article, it's becoming clear that these editors are trying to use Wikipedia to ridicule and show the subjects of these BLP articles in a negative light, while ignoring Wikipedia policy. I left warning to editor User:Dickphatsingh about template removal from the Rattray article, but it does seem strange how all of a sudden, several new editors appear, editing the same three articles and reverting back to each others edits. I'll assume this is nothing more than a coincidence, but something that should probably be looked into. Also note, if this is the wrong place for me to mention this, please let me know so I can bring this up in the appropriate manner. Cmr08 (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the negative edits as well as the unduly promotional ones. A strange mixture. It is hard to be sure of motive: I have encountered promotional articles which have been willing to include negative material to build up the importance; most of them have involved negative material about a person';s youth, intended to show how they have risen above it, and this is rather different. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now attempted to edit the Axworthy article, removing some irrelevant and clearly negative content. Considering how recently it has been added, I have issued a level 4 warning to Decuw for adding defamatory content. If it should be added back, it would be better if some other admin would do the blocking. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

The article has been vandalized and needs attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.37.165 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The obvious vandalism to Dan Bilzerian has been cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matthew Berdyck

Although AfC drafts aren't indexed by Google, they are picked up by mirrors. See [12]. I'm rather concerned about this draft in general. After reading it closely, I removed this on BLP grounds. Note that it is a claim about a third party referenced to a YouTube video which is simply a recording on a private answering machine. Another of the "references", i.e. this one, is highly inappropriate from a BLP point of view. I'm not sure we should even be linking to it. That combined with the text of the draft suggests that the proposed Wikipedia article is being used as part of the various internet forum battles the subject is involved in. Further background to this can be found at the AfC Help Desk here and here where there are lengthy posts from the draft's creator claiming to be the subject's friend and most recently an IP claiming to be the subject. Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop anyone removing controversial unsourced info from draft articles (as you've already done). Though in the case of this draft it is one of the worst examples, seems to be someone making a poorly sourced right-to-reply written by someone who knows a considerable amount about the subject. Maybe a "NO INDEX" template would help? Sionk (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So, basically we have an article about a person lacking notability, minimum NPOV, reliable sources, with BLP issues. I removed the blogspot reference, your removal was perfectly fine and the AFC reviewer was correct in declining. The Helpdesk thread seems to have devolved into "OMG Wikipedia is teh big business tool and I'm being censored" now, so no help there. Claims the subject is coming out with a groundbreaking documentary, so maybe they they should wait until that gets some solid coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've just gone through it and removed a whole swathe of material [13] per WP:BLP. Even though this is probably an autobiography, unreferenced assertions re the subject's DoB, parents' names, his sexuality, criminal charges brought against him, alleged malfeasance by the named mayor of his hometown, accusations against him on internet forums, etc. etc. all went. Hopefully, there will be no attempts to restore it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Looks like it was just tagged for speedy too, so that might be the best outcome at this point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

that was my G11. I suggest salting it for a few weeks as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this whole assessment. I'm noting that one of the editors above seems to be mocking Matthew Berdyck's dyslexia. I find that to be both unprofessional and ignorant. After reading quite a bit of this guys work I have noted that he has been trying to leave his film career for the last year but keeps having success in spite of himself. That does not suggest someone who is attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. As an outside opinion I agree with Mr Berdyck that Wikipedia editors were bullying him. His article explained how he was being stalked on the internet using the above mentioned blog. Before that blog was recently removed from Google for impersonation several Wikipedia editors posted in the comments giving the woman who was harassing him ammo to attack him. Answer.com staff seem to have been able to pick up on the harassment. That woman has now been permabanned from multiple services for issues with cyber stalking. I think Wikipedia owes this man an apology. 70.17.8.18 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thuyet Buon Vua and Linh Nga#Personal life

Both the articles contain some very strange claims. Verification is difficult as G-translator is not good at translating Vietnamese and subjects are (from what I have found) unknown in the English speaking world. The subjects seem to be notable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Gawdz I hate those bios sourced to non-English sources. But if I look at the "references" for Thuyet Buon Vua, they all seem to be about Linh Nga to begin with, so maybe we could redirect it there? Not sure how appropriate that would be though - I just straight up deleted the "Personal life" section as inappropriate and unsourced. But without a trusted editor fluent in Vietnamese it's hard to tell. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Muahechieuthangdung (talk · contribs), creator of the article Thuyet Buon Vua, reinstated the "Personal life" section, the sourcing is still vague and unidentifiable. The editor has been notified about this discussion. I'll notify also Homealone1990 (talk · contribs), creator and main contributor to the article Linh Nga. There are some objection regarding neutrality and sourcing also at the talk page of the Vietnamese article Nguyễn Linh Nga. Threre seems to be some connection between Thuyet Buon Vua, Linh Nga and Năm Cam case ([14], [15]), but all this is obscured by subjective claims such as ...a master tactician and principal advisor for Kings... (it looks like a nickname but it isn't appropriate as a main personal characteristic in the opening sentence of an article about a 21st century living person), ...most prestigious and powerful couples of Hanoi... etc. I also notified WP:Vietnam about this discussion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden

Several issues in the article, particularly the "Personal Life" section.

Often involves claims about third-parties (claims made by the subject of the article).

Subject of article used as source for citations.

Lots of "according to Branden" "Branden reports" etc. Should stick to VERIFIABLE facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justletmeedit (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dmitry Medvedev

I’ve already mentioned this issue in other topic 5 (178.66.191.199). My opinion is that in this case violation vs the biography doesn’t exist, because it’s the truth without need for any further proofs. Note: now, there’re many proofs and these proofs say without any doubt: celebrating this holiday is the very bad thing, on December the 20th. A user can write about this fact in the biography of Medvedev without the using of terrible words and without emotions to provide the neutrality. The morality of society has always been of great importance (the Russian president must provide such the situation for the good of 150 millions of people in Russia). This is the moral responsibility of president (part of his biography in any context). Of course, the strong relationships with Putin reveal (the relevant section was used). On the aspect of the morality, Putin is not better than Medvedev (he can be from the FSB or something else: it’s not the reason to mix with the dirt the memory of all the victims of the Bolsheviks). One very important detail is that there’s a holiday and there’s some gladness in honor of December the 20th in the year 1917 (it is the fantastic absurd considering the direct relation to the creation of the VCHK). Several phrases without any emotions from the user could be written, as I mentioned above (words like “happiness” and “sadness” couldn’t be used in this text). Here we can provide simply the statement of this fact with some explanations and nothing else (and necessary references too). - 178.66.138.116 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC).

Can I place the related short text in accordance with my message (above)? Everything will be done correctly (in regard of the neutrality and so on). A very short text with some references (proofs). - 178.66.163.158 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

Akber Choudhry

Resolved

User:Dougweller deleted Akber Choudhry. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Akber Choudhry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Akber Choudhry. An article was created about me two years ago. I did not like it but I did not complain.

Since then, the Qadiani wikipedia team (lead by User:Peaceworld111) have been tinkering with that article and trying to redirect it to an organization for whom I was a spokesperson 3 years ago. They are also slowly removing legal references to the '2010 hate campaign' controversy and including unsubstantiated references. This is all presumably to malign one of the critics of the Qadiani Ahmadiyya (me).

For the last few days, I was very active on Twitter and peaceworld111 is subscribed to me in on Twitter, so he would know it. Knowing that people might be accessing my profile, he took it upon himself to execute a 'merge' that was discussed three years ago.

The author of my unauthorized page (AliJaana) contacted me and I asked him to remove the page entirely and wondered why he had created it in the first place.

I have edited the Khatme Nubuwwat Academy page and added the information and links that were 'lost' in the merge. Please review the changes and determine if the said merge was just the culmination of 'slow vandalism' by concerted effort of some editors.

I hate to target editors by name. However, after having gone through the history of the Khatme Nubuwwat Academy, it is very obvious that small changes by User:Peaceworld111 and his team (Muhandes, Nawabmalhi and others) are targeted to remove evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service did not file charges against the academy and the entire 'hate campaign' did not have any legs, and to show the academy as an extremist organisation. Most of the exculpating information was on my (unauthorized) page, and by 'merging' without actually merging much, they effectively removed the information from the record.

Now that I have fixed the grammar and the events and history of the 2010 alleged hate campaign, please delete my unauthorized page and/or remove the redirect.

I have also opened a Dispute section on the Khatme Nubuwwat Academy talk page as it has been marked 'disputed' without any mention of what is disputed. Again, not very good :)

Based on an email conversation with an editor, I have added the following section : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Northamerica1000#Request_for_deletion Akber Choudhry 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have replied at the discussion linked directly above at my user talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akber Choudhry showed no support for keeping this BLP with no suggestion that our notability criteria were met, so this request seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear akberc, the accusation you have levelled against me and the non-existing "team" are utterly absurd and false. I hope I don't need to comment further. Thanks. --Peace world 16:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Willie Jerome Manning: use of court records as source material

Previous discussion at BLPN.

I refer to Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policy (2.4 Avoid Misuse of primary Sources): Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. This article contains 8 sections of text that rely solely on uncollaborated court records: one of them, incredibly, is even cited in the Biography! I tried removing all the forbidden sections – my edits were undone. I tried replacing the first section of text with a reliable source – my edit was undone. I asked for comments from other editors; this resulted in the mistaken comment that the information was collaborated by the source cited in the previous section. I had another go at simply removing the offending text – my edit was again undone. These sections of text have no place in this article, but unless I have moderator support I shall be unable to remove them.Smallnslow (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please see if they could generate more responses to the RfC for this article? I don't know how to do that. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look, and though I agree with the need to replace the court sources with proper secondary sources, I'm not sure there's a significant BLP issue here. The court sources are mainly being used to describe the various appeals he has made. Secondary sources are surely available, and someone with the time and interest can do the research to find and use them. Strictly speaking, one could delete the section in question until this happens -- but I'm not sure that the interests of BLP would be satisfied by doing so (given what deletion of the section would do to the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Perp, the lead should explain why this article involves a well-documented historical event. Unfortunately, people are murdered all the time, and often the perp is charged and sentenced separately for each one of the multiple murders. The reliance here on primary sources suggests to me that this article does not comply with WP:Perp, and therefore needs to be at WP:AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In the past, the article did give an indication of something significant about this case. Not sure why that point was deleted. An AfD might well be appropriate, but it's not obvious to me that it should be deleted. There are a lot of secondary sources; the article doesn't rely mainly on court records. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the dates on the secondary sources, last I checked, they don't suggest continuing notability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input, especially from Anythingyouwant, which has opened up a wider perspective. I’ve tagged the article for proposed deletion.Smallnslow (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You would probably want to try WP:AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Chaka Fattah Jr.

Mostly advertising, I'd question the sources, notability. Appears to be self created and edited.

Takes exerts from his lawsuit against the government he self-filed. Reads like a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.249.165 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy as advertising. This should have been done long ago. The law suit does have decent newspaper refs, but it's still not encyclopedic material. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the author removed it for speedy deletion citing length of time. I assume there isn't a statute of limitations to remove a biography, esp if it is advertising?

Can the author just remove the speedy deletion adv? Looks like he just reverts any edits about him he doesn't like.

I suspect the IP is the subject or works for him - geolocates to Pennsylvania. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Murray (architect)

ARB is the statutory regulator of Architects in the UK. Section 20 of the Architects Act 1997 and only persons on the Register can be referred to as 'architect/s'. Mr Murray is not registered and should not be described as such and should be updated to 'architectural designer' or an other alternative that is not protected under the Act.

I've moved it to Peter Murray (architectural journalist). Incidentally, the article is sourced solely to Debrett's and needs a lot of work re referencing and copy-editing. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it back - reliable sources describe him as an architect (notably the Architectural Record here) and we don't make content decisions based on what British law might dictate. If the article's going to be moved, it needs to be moved based on a consensus discussion about the appropriate title for the article based on reliable sources, not based on an anonymous appeal to authority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Rob Ager

This is a BLP about a self-published author who only ever seems to have written for his own website and YouTube channel. Promotional tone and poor sourcing. Does this really meet WP:GNG?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it needs a bit of toning down, but I did a quick spot check of sources and I'd say it would survive an AFD without problem. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiesza name

In Kiesza there's a dispute about how to identify an artist. An editor wishes to use the name "Kiesza Szosi" as though it's her real name, when in fact it's entirely different than her real name, and there's a lack of sources for anything but a single stage name "Kiesza". --Rob (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Troy LaFerrara

I'm not 100% certain of the policies around this, but there is a lot of content in Murder of Troy LaFerrara which seems dubious in terms of BLP, particularly the 'Miranda Barbour' section. (a) none of the sources say who the unnamed uncle was convicted of abusing, but the article reads like it is. (b) A law inforcement officer saying '[we] haven't received any information verifying what she said' seems at odd with a confirmed conviction. etc. It seems like the whole lot needs a serious trim per WP:BLPCRIME. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Vivek Murthy

There are misleading portions under the final section of the article for Vivek Murthy in the subsection entitled “Nomination for Surgeon General.”

1. The statement “In November 2013, Murthy was nominated by President Obama for the post of United States Surgeon General,” lacks any cited support. Note that the specific date of Dr. Murthy's nomination was November 14, 2013. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/health/obama-selects-health-policy-advocate-as-surgeon-general.html?_r=0.)

2. The statement that reads “Murthy's nomination had not advanced by March” is not true and there is no cited support for this statement. To the contrary, Dr Murthy’s nomination was advanced when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee of the United States Senate approved of Dr Murthy’s nomination on February 27, 2014 after a hearing with a bipartisan vote. (See http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=7a67bc2f-ab7f-467c-ac25-326eb272d03a&groups=Chair ; and http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/03/15/surgeon-general-nominee-runs-into-senate-resistance-over-stance-health-care-guns/9c0gFvR0pcmEG7tA4RvFqJ/story.html )

3. The following statement is merely a partial summary: “The Washington Post of March 26, 2014 summarized the matter: [Murthy] has come under attack for his relative youth, his support for an assault weapons ban and a Twitter posting in October 2012 when he wrote, "Guns are a health care issue." [...] The White House is still conferring with Senate Democrats on how to advance Murthy's nomination, including possibly postponing a vote until after the November [2014] midterms.[17]” This statement conspicuously omits facts stated in the cited article, specifically that major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Physicians hold positions similar to Murthy’s.

4. Last sentence: "Reportedly, about ten Senate Democrats were refusing to support Murthy's nomination; among them was Mark Begich, who cited concerns about the nominee's political advocacy and inexperience as a practicing physician." This is not a true statement because cited article focuses on Dr Murthy's statements on gun control which the NRA opposes. The cited article attributes this quotation to U.S. senator Mark Peter Begich. In the cited article, Begich is identified as "a lifetime NRA member seeking re-election this year" and the article states that Begich is one of several "Senate Democrats who will not vote for Murthy because of the NRA opposition."

John Lockley

My attention to John Lockley was probably raised via Traditional healers of South Africa, which I contribute to occasionally and Mycelium101 also edits. CorbieVreccan raised possible COI issues on the BLP article's talk page a year ago. I and Mycelium101 joined the article talk page discussion and cleaned up the article which appeared to be self-promotional to make it neutral. Mycelium101 notified Turnlock, who created the article in 2010, about possible COI issues. A year later, CorbieVreccan again raised the same issues and suggested Mycelium had a COI which they had explicitly stated was not true in response to a question posted by CorbieVreccan on the article talk page the previous year. Mycelium101 and I have objected to their recent edits which appear to me to be an attempt to discredit the subject of the BLP. Yesterday another editor Uyvsdi restored CorbieVreccan's reverted edits, which I have since reverted again. I don't want to get involved in a futile edit war, which is why I am bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. (Please note that I have intentionally left out some information to prevent outing of an editor, please do not raise those issues here.) Helen Online 08:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Helen. For reference, I was responding to the latest edits while Helen was writing this, and therefore I include my reply [16] for the latest edits. Mycelium101 (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Contreras, ChFC®

Carlos Contreras is a financial adviser and investment adviser representative with an independent fee-based SEC registered investment adviser - Financial Management Services of America “FMSA”. He has served the financial management needs of South Florida since 1990, understanding and responding to the unique circumstances of the international high net worth client base, which ranges from corporate executives to physicians, entrepreneurs and retirees. He is a recipient of the prestigious designation of The Chartered Financial Consultant® (ChFC®), an advanced financial planning designation conferred by The American College. The ChFC® professional is qualified to assist individuals, professionals, and small-business owners with comprehensive financial planning, including insurance, income taxation, retirement planning, investments, and estate planning. The ChFC® is the most comprehensive educational program available for individuals seeking to be knowledgeable and ethical financial professionals. As a 12 year US Army Reserve veteran, he has developed both leadership & team building skills that enables him to collaborate with fellow professionals in meeting the needs of a client's entire financial picture. He is thirty five year resident of Miami, lives with his wife of twenty two years, Romelia, mother to his three only children; Vanessa, Kathy, and Julie. Mr. Contreras is also a committeeman for the Republican Executive Committee of Miami. In his free time he enjoys scuba diving, and does volunteer work with military veterans.

That's nice. But this is the wrong venue: I think you want Requested Articles. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalled AFC

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles R. Conn is stalled, can someone with an interest in nonprofits have a look and see if it's fixable please? Guy (Help!) 11:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I accepted it, after some minor rewriting for tone. . Borderline: I am not certain it would pass afd, but the usual standard is just a reasonable likelihood of passing, which some interpret at 50%,, but other, like myself, at about 60%. Obviously anything involving afd is guesswork. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon

This article if full of things that just aren't true.

1) Cynthia never rented John's room. She rented A room from Mimi but it was short lived as the 2 couldn't get along. She had her own bedsit when he was in Hamburg and then after she and John got married with Mimi until her mother came home from Canada. (John, by Cynthia Lennon and A Twist of Lennon, by Cynthia Lennon) 2) This 1989 visit to to the hard rock cafe was. This occurred in 1989 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1313634/John-Lennon-War-peace-Lennon-family-Yoko-Cynthia-Julian-Sean-pictured-time-years.html (scroll to bottom) 3)John asked Cynthia to dance at the party not to go out with him.(A Twist of Lennon by Cynthia Lennon and John by Cynthia Lennon) 4) John and Thelma Pickles had broken up LONG before he met Cynthia. However they remained close friends. (Lennon, Ray Coleman - though questionable because some thngs were not true all direct quotes as in this case from Thelma were true) Also in this article of an interview BY Thelma she clearly states that she and John were over before He and Cynthia began to date and who would stay with a "boyfriend" who openly fancied someone else http://dailydoseofun4u.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-lennons-first-girlfriend.html 5)Mimi threw a CHICKEN at him and a hand mirror and was generally nasty to everyone so it wasn't just Cynthia.(any number of sources it's a pretty famous story Atwist of Lennon and John by Cynthia Lennon) Another story that points to Mimi's coldness is her reaction to the wedding http://books.google.com/books?id=-C-w8V6ujMoC&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=mimi+reacts+to+JOhns+wedding&source=bl&ots=FoZjd4EP9A&sig=Tj0c7EktHU8rFhCOREEU3HNQiJE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DH81U5edCaXNsQSVh4JY&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=mimi%20reacts%20to%20JOhns%20wedding&f=false 6)You fail to mention the White Feather Foundation which is Julian and Cynthia's main foundation. http://www.whitefeatherfoundation.com/ The name actually comes from John. "ad once said to me, that should he pass away, if there was some way of letting me know he was going to be ok - that we were all going to be ok - the message would come to me in the form of a White Feather." http://www.whitefeatherfoundation.com/who-we-are

Ameeta

This article is extremely opinionated and portrays a reasonably successful film star in a negative way. It continuously refers to A grade and B grade movies when the definitions of these terms are not clear nor is there an agreement among everyone about this classification. Ameeta had a successful career and starred in many successful films. The article refers to these successes as an afterthought. Each paragraph starts with a negative comment about how she acted in B grade movies (opinion) or how she made bad decisions (opinion). For example the second paragraph refers to how her refusal to accept a supporting role in Mother India was bad for her career; do we really know? That is clearly an opinion. I think the whole article should be rewritten with a more balanced approach and fairness to a very talented and successful star of Indian cinema.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.186 (talk • contribs)

The article has just been gutted of unsourced material by User:Mosfetfaser, which has left it as a stub. Take a look.

I'm not really sure that this is an improvement over this version, where you had improved the lead somewhat, and I had improved some other areas. What do you think?

In many ways, even the version before my changes was quite complimentary about Ameeta, emphasing her talent and beauty etc., while also being blunt about her (claimed) lack of ultimate commercial success. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith for a moment, perhaps Mosfetfaser is actually doing what you suggested - rewriting the article from scratch (as Douglas Adams would say, REDO FROM START) - and removing all the unsourced material was just the first step in that. Stand by... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirm and rewrite whatever you want with your good faith. My internet searches turned up nothing "wiki standard" to confirm any of the information I took down Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Three week edit war over WP:BLP violations

I'm not a regular editor of this article about Ted Nugent, however it is on my watchlist and I happened to notice an edit-war over what appears to be a pretty obvious WP:BLP violation. A non-reliable source was being used a source for contentious material about living person.[17] I have no idea whether the accusation is true, nor do I care. But we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice an opinion held by a non-reliable source (AKA an advocacy organization without a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking) . Therefore, I have partially reverted the edit.[18] I invite other experienced editors knowledgeable about WP:RS and WP:BLP to examine the issue. Please see This ANI discussion. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephen K. Amos

This page needs to be semi-protected and some recent edits erased, I think. Mezigue (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like oversight got to it first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Madhavi Vuppalapati

Madhavi Vuppalapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring between an SPA and the subject (or someone associated with her) over some negative information. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns. I've asked User:Mcc1270 to comment here, and the other account to stop editing altogether. Reported via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:FreeRangeFrog

Sorry if the my editing have violated the guidelines, but I think the judgement given by Court would be perfect to be added https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1839892/Kyko_Global_Inc_et_al_v_Prithvi_Information_Solutions_Ltd_et_al

Because I can see many of the BLP pages with such citation e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobi_Alexander

Please let me know your thought on this. mak27 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Mcc1270 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said the material couldn't be added, I said it was being added in a completely inappropriate way, sourced to court documents and other things that violate WP:BLP. You come up with a viable paragraph of that stuff here, with citations, and we'll look at it. Also, please sign in if you're the user above. The references are gone from Kobi Alexander, by the way. Nonetheless, thanks for pointing that out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the page please have a look, I hope it does not violates the guidelines. mak27 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Mcc1270 (talk)

Dev Ross

We have a single-purpose account who regularly comes by and restores the article to an unacceptable state--removal of tags, reinstatement of a resume full of trivia, fluff words, etc. The single purpose is more than just this person; it extends also to the associated (and equally non-neutral) The Rocks (TV show). Your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it, boss. You swing the machete, I'll wield the scalpel, and voila - NPOV. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My personal view is that none of this is interesting enough to warrant an article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell

IP blocked for 31 hours. Hopefully they'll come back with some desire to contribute positively to the project. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some assistance with the Jason Russell page. I saw someone had edited the word 'naked' to 'in a state of undress'. I considered that this might fall under Weasel Words in that a state of undress implies that he was not naked. So, I did my due diligence, and looked into it. I found dozens of newspapers, websites, etc. had covered the story and stated he was naked during a breakdown. Further, there are photos and videotape of the event. The evidence seemed overwhelming so I reverted the weasel words 'state of undress' back to 'naked' and cited my sources.

One user, Collect, claims that I am violating BLP even though the fact that he is naked is verifiable, NPOV, and not OR so does not violate BLP. He further states that I have not provided evidence despite giving pictures, videotape, dozens of news article, and an interview with Oprah where Jason Russell says he was naked. Now, these types of disputes are common. But I start looking through the history and found that this same user has been removing citations and manipulating the talk page for a period of 2 years since the event occurred.

If citing multiple primary sources, a dozen secondary sources, and an interview with Oprah doesn't rise to the level of verifiable then nothing will. The problem is that unless I keep watching the page Collect will revert the changes, delete the sources, and clear the talk page of any history that it ever occurred. Then when another user says 'wasn't he naked' he can say 'no reliable sources' because he deleted them all. This is what he has done for 2 years. Really need an admin to step in here... please see the Jason Russell talk page for more. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANEW for more. Collect (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2014 (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.

Bryant H. McGill

This article is clearly autobiographical and self-promotional. This is not a notable personality. His notoriety is self-invented. Specifically, addressing his article from top to bottom:

The Goodwill Treaty is a self-promotion initiative that showcases McGill's ability to get actual notable personalities to pose in a picture for his website. It is a clear attempt to invent fame and notoriety. The initiative encourages people to sign a "treaty" which, itself, includes McGill's personal social networking information.
The Wikipedia article name-drops notable signers of this "treaty", as if to suggest some connection between McGill and these celebrities. This is another obvious attempt to invent notoriety.
The claim and source of congressional recognition and its significance are dubious.
Mention of McGill English Dictionary of Rhyme is clearly promotional. The significance of this work is not established or supported.
While it is true that McGill was mentioned in the cited WSJ article, the notability of this article is questionable, at best. Being mentioned a few times in a WSJ article for involvement in a website of almost no notoriety, does not suggest McGill's notoriety. He just happened to get his name in the paper once or twice.
Similarly, having a photo selected (among dozens) in a minor competition does not constitute notoriety. Indeed, he was not even a winner, and there were dozens of those. Selection as a finalist is not noteworthy. Mentioning Ron Howard, in conjunction with this photo, is simple name dropping and another obvious attempt to suggest notoriety.
Recent Books and Other Works sections are simply promotional.
Some sources and most external links point to McGill's self-authored material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foswick (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayer

The new article Jonathan Mayer (created March 27 by a single editor, about a Stanford researcher working on privacy) is a good attempt, but it needs copyediting throughout (it was written by a non-native English speaker and there are a number of infelicities in the language). It also has a bit of unsourced material which may be wrong -- for example, Mayer is not a lawyer (contrary to the unsourced assertion in the very first sentence of the article!).

I know the subject of the article, so I won't try to address these things myself. --Schoen (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The same contributor has also created a new article on Arvind Narayanan (also a privacy researcher), who has expressed concern that that article needs copyediting too. --Schoen (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Basetsana Kumalo

The surname of this person is Khumalo, there has been a gross misspelling which must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.1.91 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

www.basetsanakumalo.com seems to be her official site and her twitter account appears to be basetsanakumalo. A quick look suggests that Kumalo is used by at least some of the media e.g. The Sunday Times (South Africa)[19]. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Per MOS:BIO, "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". Her website, Linkedin profile and Twitter profile all spell her surname "Kumalo". Her first name was spelled incorrectly in the article title however, so I moved it. Helen Online 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

Brendan Eich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears the advocates are using sources in a inappropriate manner to make POV edits to this BLP. When every recent edit is made in such a way as to paint a person in a negative light, it gives cause for concern. I'm asking the regulars here to eyeball the crap out of this article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Barring unambiguous and verifiable evidence that the departures from the board are directly related to his stance on same-sex marriage, your removal is perfectly appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two different issues. The article says half the board resigned because of the decision to make Eich CEO, which is what the five linked WP:RS all say. There was already one linked WP:RS when pork inappropriately removed it, there are five now, even more could be added if necessary. The marriage topic is in a different section of the article. You seem to be drawing a connection that the article does not, and then demanding proof of that connection, when the wave of board resignations is notable in itself.TVC 15 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and unless I'm mistaken Eich has done many things not related to prop 8. While this may be notable, we should be cautious about making this donation be the focal point of the article. We aren't there yet, but recent edits, including the POV section title called "stance against gay marriage" is cause for concern, which is why this section was opened here. Perhaps this isn't related, but I note that you, PDX er1 and David Gerard (with Gerad being the fulcrum) all have interesting article overlap histories.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the policy at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." As you wrote, "We aren't there yet." So, your creation of this section was inappropriate. As for your references to "interesting overlap histories," I hope you will notify the other editors before casting any aspersions in their directions.TVC 15 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

When someone changes a section from "Political activities" to "Stance against gay marriage", and the sources don't say that, that is editorializing. Couple with that recent activity, and indeed recent events merits a section here. I've seen several sections created before any problems arose, (Hr. Joe Horny was caught with a live hooker, watch out)Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The title of that section says, "Proposition 8 donation." According to the edit history, you wrote that [20], prior to creating this section. Are you now saying, you wrote the section title so that you could create a BLPN section complaining about what you wrote?TVC 15 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that, changing it from a POV & source straying title to a neutral and source-respectful title. What of it? My original statement here still summarizes my position. Peope tryng to advocate a position may attempt to edit this article in a manner which violates BLP. Nothing more. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

I removed some content per BLP, and TVC 15 is restoring without consensus. I'm perfectly willing to work out the issue, but if I am incorrect and should leave what I consider to be a BLP violation in the article, please tell me otherwise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus on the Talk page to include the material that you deleted. Your deletions and reversions did risk an edit war, but instead of taking the bait I have notified the other editors who commented on the Talk page. As a result, there isn't an Edit War, and your section headline above is as unwarranted as this BLPN section. BLPN is for events that have actually occurred, not things you attempt to provoke or otherwise fear might conceivably occur.TVC 15 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have raised a BLP issue. Since I have, a new consensus must be formed that this is not a BLP issue before it can be restored. That's policy and is non-negotionable. I am perfectly willing to live by any consensus formed, and as I offered earlier I'm willing to discuss a way to introduce the material in a way that does not violate BLP. I could be a dick and say "go file an RfC", but why don't you take me up on my offer instead?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a pair of proposals regarding this biography (not having noted the edit war) on the article's Talk page, and participation there would be welcome. One of them relates to the board resignations issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

This article is a mass of allegations of corruption and bribery affecting a substantial number of living persons. Unfortunately, there appear to be editors who think this is how articles should be written <g>. The article, though flawed, was moderately stable until 26 March and has devolved into open edit war and total disregard for WP:BLP. Will someone lock it down and try getting it into compliance with policy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

I've done about as much chopping as I can today. The sourcing is really poor. Any improvements you crack editors can make are most welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Roy Harter and Skinnyman (studio)

Roy Harter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skinnyman (studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both appear to be vanity articles, largely edited by COI accounts. I've trimmed some fat from the former, though a lot more can be done. If there's a consensus that the studio isn't noteworthy separately I'll AfD that, or it can be merged. JNW (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Eddy Hall

Not a massive deal, but as a journalist who's just written an article on British strongman Eddie Hall, I was a little surprised his name is spelled incorrectly on his wikipedia article. I corrected it myself but the change was reverted as "vandalism". As you can see from his personal website (http://eddiehallwsm.com/), Twitter account (https://twitter.com/eddiehallWSM), profile on his sponsor's website (http://www.maxiraw.com/team/eddie-hall) and his iPhone app (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/train-like-strongman-eddie/id646384920?mt=8) his name is most definitely spelled Eddie, not Eddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.18.38 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The ip is correct about the name spelling. However this will require an admin to fix this as Eddie Hall currently exists. This page will need disambiguation as well. I suggest the race car Eddie be the disambiguation, and this Eddie the primary. BLPN's very own FreeRangeFrog will hopefully weigh in and do some dirty work with his recently acquired, and well deserved admin tools.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

2 users, 'Vanamonde93' and 'Darkness Shines' have provided no important reason for reverting this edit[21], Darkness shines says that there was no consensus, while vanamonde93 says 'it was heatedly discussed'. Both of them never had access to the report. Here's recent discussion - Talk:Narendra_Modi#Jaffrelot_Christof.27s_report

Source has been misinterpreted, because;-

It is not a critical report. But it is used for supporting contradictory sentence "However, his administration has also been criticised for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state." (on lead)
Report doesn't contain anything like "He cites the fact that Gujarat ranks 21st among the 28 Indian states in the Human Development Index", {on Narendra_Modi#Debate_on_Gujarat.27s_development_under_Modi} but report says that Gujarat ranks 10th out of 21 Indian states.
On page 84, it says that "Gujarat ranks only tenth out of 21 states in terms of Human Development Index because some groups of rural Gujarat continue to lag behind", contradicting the sentence of subsection. Because writer has used the word, 'some', not 'all' or 'most'. So it is incorrect to call it criticism or interpreting as "He cites the fact that Gujarat ranks 21st among the 28 Indian states in the Human Development Index, which he attributes to the lack of development in rural Gujarat".

And there are number of more reasons. Only one side of the report is being pushed. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment : HI D4iNa4 please note that you cannot revert 3 times continiously without any concensus , would really request a third non related person to come and have a look , as i saw it was not the problem of mentioning human development index but was more like maintaining a balanced article .

Still i do not understand, when the actual statment states that "the development was more urban and not in rural" being interpreted as low human development!! as i myself am unable to digest that Please also note that the claim by Vanamonde93 that it was argued "here"(under Gujurat HDI ) is also little skeptical as only one source is been considered ! for branding a living person (is questionable until and unless he self proclaims as he did for hindutva, or being used in media frequently!), I think it should be removed until we get more sources claiming the same. or else it would be like Gandhi was a robber in the lead section referring to a single historian who saw him robbing once! please have a look here (in the last section. Shrikanthv (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell revisited

Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes requested as one editor has threatened to restore language removed by admins as a BLP violation, and protected by several admins for BLP violations, (his comment was Further reverts from you will be reported to ANEW, there is no BLP exemption here -- the other reverts had been by User:Bbb23, User:John, User:Silver seren, User:Writegeist, User:Flyer22, User:Wikipelli, User:John Cline, User:Glaisher, User:KillerChihuahua, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Srich32977, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Piandcompany, User:Lugia2453, User:Omnipaedista, User:Acoma Magic, User:Belchfire, User:Jmajeremy, User:Evanh2008, User:Ponyo, etc. which rather implies I am not alone in viewing this as a BLP issue -- and has asserted that removal of the contentious edit would be "reported to ANEW" . I consider the use of "naked" where sources state the person was in his underwear, and the police report said underwear, that the contentious claim is basically sourced to the police report which said an "allegation" had been called in that Russell was naked and masturbating, did not make it as a claim of fact - but stated that he was in his underwear.

[22] is the latest re-insertion of the contentious claim.

Is The police said they were responding to callers saying that a man in his underwear was "interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk ... had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating."

A proper claim in a BLP where the police report itself did not make any such claim of fact about the living person?

I can understand a newspaper headline using "naked" (headlines, of course, are not part of any "reliable source") where a person was in his underwear according to the police, but suggest the use of "naked" as a fact in a BLP requires extremely strong sourcing, which is not found in the reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At some point this sort of bullshit willful misrepresentation really ought to get someone canned. (Yes, I know, I know...) The issue is under productive discussion on the talk page (well, productive by some editors, at least), where perfectly reliable sources have been produced. Collect would prefer not to engage with that particular reality, so he posts a diversion here. To see it, you'll have to wade through some of the usual crap… Examples of the sources already provided (though ignored by Collect) are given in these diffs; there are others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Try not to attack editors -- it makes others wonder about your own civility. And try saying to User:Bbb23, User:John, User:Silver seren, User:Writegeist, User:Flyer22, User:Wikipelli, User:John Cline, User:Glaisher, User:KillerChihuahua, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Srich32977, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Piandcompany, User:Lugia2453, User:Omnipaedista, User:Acoma Magic, User:Belchfire, User:Jmajeremy, User:Evanh2008, User:Ponyo that their position on WP:BLP is bullshit and see how far you get. Cheers -- and please do not stalk me like this any more -- it is getting quite tiresome indeed. Collect (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No no -- it's only you whom I'm accusing of practicing bullshit -- by giving a tendentious misrepresentation of the discussion underway. Here's a big clue: you haven't responded to the substance, you've merely produced the usual bluster. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a proper post on the proper noticeboard. I fear it is not I who is in the "bullshit" category. The question, as noted by the others posting below, was proper here, and their opinion appears to be a teensy bit contrary to your accusations. If you can cite anything here which is a "tendentious misrepresentation" kindly post at the proper noticeboard, and do not clutter this one up. Have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):My revert was during a Huggle session of recent changes patrol and I certainly would have reverted the recent edit had I encountered it in similar fashion. We are not here to speculate in Wikipedia's voice that a person may have "perhaps" been doing an embarrassing and contentious thing. It occurs to me to be a violation of both the spirit and letter of our wp:blp policy and; we should not entertain any debate which suggests it is not – nor tolerate one's refusal to hear, or inability to grasp the "bright-line" boundaries which have been thoroughly explained.—John Cline (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Never, ever get into a position of fighting to include tabloid-type material on an article on a living person on Wikipedia. It will not end well for you. We are quite rightly very conservative about including material like this. I am currently looking into this and do not rule out taking admin action. --John (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious in saything the guy was naked, when he himself has said he was naked. There are no BLP issue here, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My contention lies with the original synthesis which adds: "perhaps masturbating". I find it rather convenient that you've managed to manipulate the discussions focus on his being "naked", which has some basis of verifiability while ignoring the "speculation in Wikipedia's voice" which has none. Today your darkness does not shine at all; instead: dis-serving this discussion with obfuscation.—John Cline (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but it seems that others differ. --John (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But it would help greatly if sensible editors could acknowledge that he was in fact naked and said as much himself. What to do with it is for discussion and disagreement, but let's not disagree on the obvious facts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't examined all the sources or even all the latest discussion. I admit to getting impatient with discussions about a brouhaha that, utlimately, is a tiny blip in a man's personal life that has little to do with his notability. However, if I understand it properly, those who want to say he was naked are relying on a source (the Hollywood Reporter) in which he said he was naked in an interview. I'm not sure if there are other sources (and some British sources should be discounted as unreliable tabloids - I don't know where the Hollywood Reporter fits on the spectrum of reliable American sources). Others don't want to say "naked" because the majority of reliable sources don't use the word and say he was in his underwear. As for my opinion, I would probably favor not reporting it at all because it's unencyclopedic and doesn't seem to be part of a pattern affecting his career (see, e.g., by contrast, Lindsay Lohan). My second choice would be to say as little as possible. If I had to say something, at this point, I don't much care if it's naked, undress, or underwear (absolutely opposed to anything about masturbation). Having said all that, I'll defer to a consensus, if one can be achieved. Remember that if a consensus cannot be achieved, for a BLP, we should err on the side of conservative.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with Bbb23 here. There are many things which happen (or are reported as happening) that do not belong on an online encyclopedia. It sounds like this may be one of them. On the other hand, if in a week or a month this becomes a widely notable part of the subject's notability, it could then be worth including. At that point there will also be a firm consensus for exactly how to report it. Until then, we err on the side of not including it. --John (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

He said he was naked, himself, when interviewed on the Oprah show. And it is a notable part of his life, the footage of him naked went viral. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even assuming it went viral, DS, that doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. The kinds of things that go viral on the Internet include some of the most pathetic garbage. This may have gone viral, but if it did, it was because it was salacious and trashy. Why should we sink to that level?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the sky going to fall because we don't (or even wait) before we use the word "naked". Is it even relevant? Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We still don't need to report it, even if what you say is true. The second part of your statement concerns your opinion, which I have already noted. Repeating your opinion does not serve to give it greater weight. --John (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Except John, it is not my opinion, it is what the RS say. "he ripped his clothes off his back, ran out naked into the street near his San Diego home, slammed his hands repeatedly on to the pavement, battered himself against parked cars, and screamed obscenities until he was eventually led away by police. This, too, became a viral video."[23] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Guardian story links precisely to [24] as its source -- and the Guardian in the source it links to states: One of the co-founders of Invisible Children, the San Diego-based charity that is campaigning for the arrest of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, has been hospitalised after police said he was detained for running around the streets screaming in his underwear. then San Diego police dispatcher transcripts show neighbours began calling around 11.30am on Thursday to report that a man was running around in his underwear in the city's Pacific Beach neighbourhood. "[Subject] is at the corner, banging his hands on the ground, screaming, incoherent," the transcript continues. "People are trying to calm him down, he's been stopping traffic.". The actual Guardian source alluded to in the Guardian piece which you wish to cite does not support the claim you wish to assert it makes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The full quote is there for all to see. The Guardian is most certainly RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And you are in fact linking to a completely different article, your link is to an article from 17 March 2012, I linked to this one from 2013 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: The text o of the edit which I consider "contentious" is

On March 15, 2012, Russell was detained by San Diego police and taken to a local hospital after publicly acting "in a bizarre and irrational manner." The police said they were responding to callers saying that a man in his underwear was "interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk ... had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating." By the time officers arrived, Russell was wearing his underwear. Russell's wife explained that he was adversely affected by criticism of the film, "because of how personal the film is, many of the attacks against it were also very personal, and Jason took them very hard." According to a brief statement issued by Invisible Children, Russell was exhausted in the wake of the emotional toll of the media storm around Kony 2012. According to a family statement, the official diagnosis was "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration

The consensus text was

On March 15, 2012, responding to reports of a man in his underwear running and screaming in the street, San Diego police detained Russell and took him to hospital. A statement by his family said the preliminary diagnosis was "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress and dehydration

I suggest the status quo ante is proper per BLP and that the proposed edit is clearly violative of BLP. Collect (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree 110%. The fact that he had a psychotic event is still reported. IMO there is no benefit to the article whatsoever by including prurient details.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would favour either 1) omitting the incident altogether or 2) including brief, conservatively-worded and BLP-compliant coverage, e.g. what Collect refers to as the "consensus text". Writegeist (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this matter, but I will state right here and now that Collect is usually spot-on when it comes to WP:BLP issues; he is one of the wisest WP:BLP editors Wikipedia has and, even if I were to disagree with him on a WP:BLP matter, I would consider his words on the issue each and every time.

On a side note: I never thought I'd see my username and Acoma Magic's in the same sentence with regard to bettering Wikipedia. By that, I mean that Acoma Magic has an editing style that often conflicts with mine and his editing style is what got him indefinitely blocked; he is currently banned (not simply blocked), though he is surely out there WP:Sockpuppeting somewhere. And Belchfire is indefinitely blocked, but surely WP:Sockpuppeting somewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I will go one step further and say that even were we to set aside the BLP, there exists a strong editorial consensus that we should maintain the current version for reasons of sensitivity and brevity in content, and that the proposed longer version places undue weight on a single unfortunate incident which received a brief 15 seconds of Internet tabloid fame. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Keshorn Walcott

Keshorn Walcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was/is a real mess - I have had a go at tidying, as has @Sillyfolkboy:, however further edits by others with keener eyes would be appreciated. Giant Snowman 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah has been interviewed. This interview is on the TheAustismSite.com blog. The head line reads,"Daryl Hannah On Living With Autism." This link will get you to the video: www.greatergood.me/1fmm8gw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmpottle (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Phil Hellmuth Bio Contains Unverified, Illogical, and Potentially Libelous Statements

Phil Hellmuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the wikipedia biography of professional poker player and well-known poker personality, Phil Hellmuth, the section about "Personality and Controversy" (just above "Bibliography") includes unverified information that may be libelous. I have never seen this information anywhere else, and I follow poker closely. Furthermore, while you cite three sources in regard to this information, one is a "dead link" and the other two do not verify this information at all (or even mention it). You follow up this unverified information with a completely speculative claim that also may be libelous, and, to top it off, is quite unlikely and demonstrates illogical thinking.

The information I am referring to is the statement that after Hellmuth was incorrectly awarded a 5K pot on Ultimate Bet (an online poker site), he wrote to his opponent, "You wanna play or what?" and "I play u limit right now," and later wrote that he had had pots awarded incorrectly "maybe 50 the wrong way to them and 50 the wrong way to me." This unverified information is followed up by the statement, "the previous cheating scandal at Ultimatebet led to suspicions about the plausibility of the company's explanation for the computer bug that they claim caused the error."

I am not contesting that this error did occur (in which Hellmuth was incorrectly awarded the pot for $5000). However, his alleged chat remarks, which sound like an unethical attempt to gloss over the mistake and keep it from being corrected, are not connected to any source in the article. Maybe he did write these remarks in the chat, but if he did, you shouldn't have any problem finding a link from a trusted source or even a screencap, as Hellmuth is the world's most famous poker player and widely followed, and was playing under his own name that night on a website he was the main spokesperson for. He was playing that game, as he plays all games (whether online or live) essentially in the public eye (with hundreds-to-thousands of people watching, even if it's just an online game), and anything he says or does within that context should be easy to verify and link to a respected source.

However, the even more serious problem is the article's statement about the "the previous cheating scandal at Ultimate Bet" somehow connecting to suspicion about this hand. The Ultimate Bet cheating scandal (aka the "superuser scandal") involved corruption in the development of the software that allowed some high-level Ultimate Bet executives to see other players "hole cards" giving them a substantial unfair advantage (which made them "superusers") and essentially stealing millions and millions in high stakes poker games, since opposing playing didn't know that their cards were "face up" when playing vs. the "superusers."

This was a huge scandal that rocked the poker world, but nobody has EVER seriously suggested Hellmuth was involved in it; even his biggest detractors don't accuse him of this, because it clearly wasn't the case. Hellmuth was a "pro" or "celebrity" spokesperson for the company Ultimate Bet, and not an executive, and there is just no sign anywhere he had anything to do with this (and people in the poker world have researched this scandal to the nth degree). Furthermore, there is a massive difference between (1) utilizing a secret software program that allows the player using it to gain an unfair edge, which he can then (theoretically) carefully exploit to win money without ever seeming suspicious and (2) having a poker hand featuring the world's most famous poker player, who is being watched by hundreds of fans minimum whenever he plays, result in the world's most famous poker player being awarded the money for winning the hand even when he clearly "lost the hand" by finishing it with an inferior holding.

In instance (1), the technique was meant to be used for millions of dollars at the highest stakes games as an illegal, highly unethical moneymaking scheme. It was also meant to be stealthy, and it really only failed because some of the people with access to the "superuser" software became so greedy that, during specific poker hands, they would make seemingly totally irrational poker decisions that were actually correct vs. their opponent's "hole cards" (which are hidden by the rules of poker, but were seen by the "superusers"). These correct but "bizarre" poker decisions eventually aroused suspicion that some of these players simply had to know their opponents "hole cards" to play so perfectly. From this point, people looked at records of poker hand histories (which are stored online and accessible) and worked backwards, finding patterns of plays that implied "superuser" knowledge, eventually leading to a full investigation and the truth coming out.

In instance (2), there was ZERO stealth. The world's most famous player, playing under his own name, being watched online by hundreds (if not thousands) of people, clearly lost a poker hand but was award the winner's money anyway. This was obviously a clear error, and would be among the stupidest scams to ever try to pull off. It makes no sense at all as anything but a glitch. You can't have world-famous Phil Hellmuth clearly have the worst hand in a poker game, with lots of people watching, and the hand details recorded in the online hand history files, and rig it so he wins $5000 (which is a pittance to both him and the site anyway). No logical person would ever think this was a scam... so casting baseless aspersions on Hellmuth's character based on trying to connect this software glitch with a totally different, unrelated (vastly bigger) scandal makes no sense and is likely libelous. I suggest you simply relate that this happened (i.e the hand played out, Hellmuth was shipped $$ even though he had the worst hand, the site gave its explanation, and refunded the $$ to the other player the next day). You could also briefly explain the superuser scandal, making it clear it is unconnected to this other incident, and that that Hellmuth has never been suspected of any direct connection to the superuser scandal; however, he has come under some fire in the poker community for continuing to support Ultimate Bet as a spokesperson and sponsored pro for the site for some time after the information started to surface that implicated high-level UB execs. (Eventually, Hellmuth resigned when the extent of upper-management corruption at UB became very clear, but some feel he should have resigned sooner and taken a stand against his unethical employers when the scandal first began to break.) However, even including that sort of info would have to be nuanced in approach, very carefully sourced and dated, and so on.

To conclude, many people dislike Hellmuth and his over-the-top, often "bratty" personality. Somebody who feels this way obviously wrote your wikipedia article on him, pushing a personal vendetta that resulted in an unfair and even likely libelous bio. This result is flat-out fucked up, and you should change it ASAP to make it a fair, level-headed bio instead of an illogical smear job. We all deserve a fair evaluation. If this was a bio about Stalin or Hitler, it would need to be fair, thoroughly sourced, and free of false claims and libelous statements and implications... and those are two of the worst people in the history of the world! This is just a poker player and "pop culture personality" who may have some attitude issues, but who also does lots of charity work and is known to be a dedicated family man and loyal friend. Why try to use wikipedia to wreck his reputation and print lies about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyguys? (talk • contribs)

The "Personlity and Controversies" section was rife with unsourced, misrepresented sources and trivial nonsense. I removed it all in the end. User:Reallyguys?, just in case you are not aware, it is perfectly fine (in fact it is encouraged) for you to edit the article yourself to make improvements. CIreland (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Martha Argerich

Personal Life

You state that MA has been married three times. This is incorrect. She has been married twice, first to Robert Chen and then to Charles Dutoit. MA was never married to Stephen Kovacevich. It is true that MA has a daughter with Mr Kovacevich. The daughter's name is Stephanie Argerich. The provenance of that name is that a coin was tossed by each parent to select the surname and Martha Argerich won the toss and gave the daughter her own surname. To level things out Martha Argerich suggested referencing the first name of Mr Kovacevich - Stephen - in their daughter's first name, hence Stephanie. There is footage on YouTube of Stephanie Argerich discussing and verifying her provenance as described above, in sections of the documentary film directed by Stephanie Argerich about Martha Argerich titled BLOODY DAUGHTER.

Thank you,

Hywel David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.45.62 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the article based on this source.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau

An RfC has been initiated here to receive outside input on the question:

Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?

Your participation there would be appreciated. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Kees Kaan

I'm concerned that, because of the poor sourcing and extravagant claims, this article violates WP:BLP. There's nothing defamatory, from what I can tell. Can somebody look at this? Bearian (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing seems notable outside of the work done by the firm. Redirected and merged. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

sanjay leela bhansali

We had deleted the signature from this page Sanjay Leela Bhansali People have been misusing it, so request you to kindly restrict anyone from adding the signature on this page

Thank you Pratiksha Pratiksha Khona (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This essay may be of assistance: Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. Among other things, that essay says: "If a person (or a representative of) requests that their signature be removed from an article, the signature should be removed, and the Wikipedia:OTRS team should be notified." Therefore, perhaps you should notify WP:OTRS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Crying Wind

Based on your statement below please remove the entire posting on Crying Wind, this "Orange Mike" Person doesn't know her, I do. Many of the accusations made in the article are false and when Different members of the family have tried to take them down or correct them we have been blocked. Many of the cited people profited a great deal from Trashing Crying Wind who DID live on the reservation (we can prove this) and WAS very poor and her mother had an affair which was covered up (We can now also prove this). Neighborhood bullies who were always jealous of her tried to find ways to sabotage this woman who merely wanted to earn a living for her children through her creativity, by the way the story is simply about depression and raising kids- it is not a political academic work. She is not a legal expert and did not know Moody publishers was going to put out her book as an auto-bio rather than a novelized auto-bio, and she would not have known the difference anyway, but the matter has been settled in court nearly 35 years ago. Can we all stop trashing her now? In the theme of if you can't say something nice (or true) don't say anything at all, Please take it down- I put the initial posting up no knowing it would harm her so severely as others went on to edit it with their usual false claims. If you need proof of my statements please tell me where to send it. We did a DNA test via ancestry.com and I have census data and pay stubs from the reservation.

Thank you for your time-

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.199.173 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a pointer to this discussion, at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin

The article reports a critic's claim that Dr. Radin neglected to mention that the "Fox sisters" confessed to being frauds. This is a half-truth that blatantly misrepresents the full picture. As Pulitzer prize winning author Deborah Blum explains in her book Ghosthunters: Willliam James and the Search for the Afterlife, one sister, Maggie, "desperate for money...sold a confession to the New York World that they were faking," but she later recanted that and said her statement "was false in every detail." (pp. 150, 155). The entire Radin article is a blatant hatchet job, giving one-sided details about objections to Radin's work, while offering only cites for responses. But if this simple distortion cannot be corrected--I believe the line ought just to be deleted--then there seems little hope to address anything more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbricklin (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk-page for the Dean Radin article where this has been addressed. Your comment about a "Prize winning author Deborah Blum" is irrelevant as that reference does not mention Dean Radin. You are doing original research and you have also been edit-warring. Goblin Face (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sasha Roiz

Could someone please check the external link to the NBC profile? Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.208.119 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Grimm (politician) query

[25] removed

"I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect," Grimm said, "especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ny1.com/content/pages/202672/rep--grimm-threatens-ny1-reporter-following-state-of-the-union|title=Rep. Grimm Threatens NY1 Reporter Following State of the Union|publisher=[[NY1]]|date=January 28, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Campbell |first= Colin |title=Michael Grimm Threatens |publisher=Politicker |date=Jan 28, 2014 |url=http://politicker.com/2014/01/michael-grimm-threatens-reporter-during-interview/}}</ref>

With the edit summary:

rm per WP:BLP -- undue aspersions on named individual)

The query is - does the quote cast "undue aspersions" on Scotto? The editor is not questioning that the source is reliable for the quote, but whether the quote as given violates WP:BLP. This quote has been in the BLP since the end of January. Many thanks. (The editor who finds the aspersions "undue" has not previously made that assertion in his past edits [26].) Collect (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Grace Mang

Grace Mang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I declined a WP:CSD#G10 speedy deletion of this article. Several IPs have tried to blank or amend it, and one added a PROD saying "subject of the article is a non-public figure and would like the page deleted", which I have also declined, because the article seems to me well-referenced and neutral and the subject sufficiently notable. I have offered to start an AfD if required and provided a pointer to WP:BLP/H. See also this request apparently from the subject. More eyes on the article would be useful. JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

I'd like to request a WP:BLP review at Warren Kinsella. The issue is that there's been a longstanding revert war over the inclusion or exclusion of various controversies that the subject has been involved in — which results in the constant flinging back and forth of accusations about potentially libellous BLP violations vs. "whitewashing", and an anonymous IP has now taken up the torch of restoring the unflattering information whenever anyone tries to remove or tone it down at all. This has been happening off and on for years — but it also warrants mention that the anonymous IP numbers involved on the "restore" side of the dispute resolve to the Parliament of Canada domain block, and that Kinsella himself has been directly involved on the "whitewashing" side (one of the editors in the page history is User:Wkinsella1960), meaning we have an issue of competing conflicts of interest engaging in a reversion war. Accordingly, I'd like to ask if someone who hasn't been involved in the dispute at all could review the article for BLP compliance. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football

Match fixing in association football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bringing attention to this article, of which I have been the main contributor so far. Consequently I think it is OK, but given the subject matter felt it best to raise it here and ask for further input from a BLP perspective. Giant Snowman 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Kay Sievers

Minorly-famous Linux developer. Recently in a flamewar with Linus Torvalds, so IPs have been linking the flamewar as if it's an important life event. I put the article on autoconfirmed for a week; could do with watchlisting - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ane Trolle

Sure about the year of birth, '1986'? Page had been created 00:39, 20 August 2009‎ mentioning "Ane Trolle' (født 1979) is a Danish singer and songwriter". Other Sources noting '1979' as year of birth: http://www.ministryofsound.com.au/music/artist/ane-trolle/ http://www.last.fm/music/Ane+Trolle (english version) http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Ane-Trolle/55804/ https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/couple-therapy/id285791464 http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/ane_trolle http://vdownload.eu/watch/1696082-trentemoller-feat-ane-trolle-moan.html http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Ane-Trolle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolle http://www.hhv-mag.com/de/review/6139/ane-trolle-honest-wall (german, calling her a '34-yrs-old' in feb. 2014)

Any reliable sources out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHealey (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Truss

Elizabeth Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've never contributed to Wikipedia before (sorry!) but I've been moved to write by moral outrage. I visited Elizabeth Truss's wikipedia because I saw her name in the news and I wondered if it was the same prospective parliamentary candidate I had recalled reported as having an affair many years ago. It was, but I only found this out through other websites. Looking into the history of the page I found that references to the affair have been consistently removed by the user Upswift, going back several years. References to the (widely reported, and not denied) affair have been independently inserted by many different users but consistently deleted by Upswift. Upswift says here that the fact that the 'sensitive private matter occurs several years before the subject became a public figure is in contravention of the BLP guidelines.' I have read through the guidelines (although of course I defer to other user's greater knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia) but I cannot find any reference to this guideline. Anyway, this would appear to be an odd principle - the idea that if someone had been involved in something noteworthy prior to them becoming a public figure that information should be withheld from their Wikipedia article. In any case, Upswift is arguing that the subject only became a public figure on 'being elected to Parliament in 2010'; this would appear to me to be disingenuous. The affair was widely reported on when Elizabeth Truss was on the Conservative candidates A-list and seeking to be elected. The affair was with a member of the Shadow Cabinet and even so both parties were central to the news coverage (The Daily Mail headline: A-list Tory's affair with married Cameron high-flyer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-387015/A-list-Torys-affair-married-Cameron-high-flyer.html); i.e. it's not like she was a nobody who had an affair with a public figure - she was as much a part of the story as him. The idea that someone only becomes a public figure when elected I would suggest is problematic (how are the public meant to find out about the people they are thinking of voting for?!) Surely when someone puts themselves up for national office they become a public figure (however minor). Upswift says, referencing the BLP guidelines: 'in particular, "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". Quoting this seems to me to misunderstand the guidlines - Wikipedia is not being the primary vehicle for spreading claims as the affair has already been widely reported on and has not been denied by the parties involved. Upswift mentions the need to protect the family of Elizabeth Truss, which is an admirable concern. In the article the name of Elizabeth's spouse is given, and the article mentions that she has daughters (not named). (I note in passing that Upswift refers to the BLP guidelines about 'Privacy of names'- her quote from this section seems to me to be taken out of context). Presumably Upswift is suggesting that these parties will be hurt by being reminded of a painful incident; it is an interesting topic of debate whether information should be removed from wikipedia to spare individuals' embarassment; but in any case we need not have this debate as the story is clearly widely accessible through various news agencies - so I am not clear how the censorship of wikipedia will protect these individuals. Another debate that could be had is whether the public has a right to know about what some consider moral transgressions, from an individual's past, when they are seeking or holding public office. But again, that debate is not even relevant here because the events were already noteworthy at the time and had an impact on her professional life! The news of the affair meant that she faced a vote to remove her as a Conservative parliamentary candidate. Indeed the information about the impact on Truss's career is clearer on Mark Field's page (with whom she had the affair) than it is on Truss's page!

The only (very implicit) information on the affair in the current article is worth quoting below, in text originally entered by Upswift (22 Nov 2011). Not only is the text a little rambling, it is also clearly sanctified - ie withholding the rather pertinent point that the 'withheld information' in question was about her affair. As a member of the public who came to find out about that incident, that seems a lot more important than a lot of the information that is included in this paragraph: "In October 2009, she was selected for the Norfolk seat by members of the constituency Conservative Association, and won over 50% of the vote in the first round of the final against five other candidates, one of whom was local to the county.[16] [17] However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet,[18] objected to Truss’s selection, claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members.[19] A motion was proposed to terminate Truss’s candidature, but this was defeated by 132 votes to 37 at a general meeting of the Association’s members three weeks later.[20] "

I note one reason Upswift gave for removing information about the affair, on this instance in 2011 (although Upswift has used a whole range of justifications for censoring the page across the years), was "the reason for the failed deselection attempt was also due to the perception of how the Con Party had handled the selection process." Perhaps this is true, I was not there, but Upswift cites no sources and this is completely at odds with the way the news was reported, eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8327362.stm

Upswift has quoted the BLP policy, but what the BLP policy does clearly say is that: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." To cap it off the very example given in the BLP policy is about a politician having an alleged affair! This affair in this instance is not even alleged - it has not been denied and it had a direct impact on her political career. A variety of different users have tried to add this information over the years and as far as I can see it is only Upswift, consistently Upswift, who has removed this information. Finally, the two people who replied to the topic when brought up on the BLP noticeboard in February 2013 both suggested that the information about the affair should be included in the article, but Upswift removed it anyway. In summary, to me this all smacks of censorship. But anyway, you don't need to take it from me as the page history speaks for itself.

The information about the affair has - at different times - been included in (and removed by Upswift from) the 'Personal life' section and the 'Candidate' section. I will not presume to put it back in myself, but I appeal to any reasonable disinterested parties that it should be included. Please sort this out, good people of Wikipedia.

PREVIOUS BLP NOTICEBOARD COMMENTS: Elizabeth Truss

Extended content

Elizabeth Truss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|views) In recent days, a number of users have added a mention of an affair that reportedly took place in 2004-5. This was several years before the subject became a public figure, being elected to Parliament in 2010. Two other users had made repeated attempts to insert this information several months ago: Daily Blue91 and Yum Yum Hornblower, both of whom were sockpuppets and blocked shortly afterwards. While there are several citations about the story, my concern is that the sensitive private matter occurring several years *before* the subject became a public figure is in contravention of the BLP guidelines - in particular, "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. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article". Also, "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." This is of particular relevance as the subject's husband is named on her Wikipedia page, and her daughters are referred to. My view is that an appropriate balance had been struck by providing references to citations in the "Candidate" section of her entry expanding on the details of the matter, thus enabling people to see reports if they wish, yet not detailing the specifics explicitly in the article itself for the reasons I have outlined above. (incidentally, I think the current wording at the end of the "Personal Life" section is in any case not neutral, with the inclusion of the loaded word "admitted".) I'd be interested in your view. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upswift (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Since it has been covered by mainstream non-tabloid reliable sources like The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph etc and it had an impact on her professional life, I'm not sure the sensationalist/titillating claims/privacy concerns apply. It probably merits a brief mention in the "Candidate" section. That said, the article looks like it might benefit from protection. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Looks like many people over time have felt this information is important. Wikipedia is about documenting facts, whether you personally like them or not. The edit by 81.107.70.245 seems fine and I can't see anything wrong with it. Maybe her controversial recent changes to the childcare system should be documented as well, as that's probably what's drawing people to her page. 78.147.157.197 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (Dynamic IP, other edits made by this IP are not mine.) Thanks for the responses. Actually, until the past week, not that many people *have* thought the information sufficiently important to include it in this article; in fact, the main 2 users in the past who sought to include it were sockpuppets who are now blocked, as I mentioned above. But I agree that the childcare proposals that she announced have probably been drawing people to her page, and perhaps the recent repeated insertions have been influenced by this. However, I also agree that her announcement on the childcare changes should be included. Also, it is true that mainstream non-tabloid sources mentioned the affair, but only in relation to the deselection attempt itself; the original revelations themselves appeared in the Mail, which is not such a reputable source. That is why I maintain that the current wording of the "Candidate" section (with referenced citations) covers the issue sufficiently. Upswift (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetimecommenter (talk • contribs)

So the point is that Wikipedia shouldn't be the primary vehicle spreading negative information. If the only source for the affair were the Daily Mail, then we should leave it out, as the Daily Mail is often considered borderline as a source, specifically because it tends towards scandals. Here, however, we have a plethora of better sources documenting the affair: The Guardian; The New Statesman; even the three called the UK newspaper of record, The Telegraph; The Independent; The Times. It is hard to ask for better sources. It is worth a sentence or two; and no, it is not sufficient to write "information about the candidate had been withheld", if The Times and The Telegraph and The Independent all believe it's worth writing that she was accused of having an affair, then we should too. --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it seems this would meet the basic inclusion threshold for negative information, as it had an impact on the subject's career. But I'm going to defer to Upswift and see if he can explain his rationale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. The original reporting of the "affair" appeared (as far as I am aware) in the Mail in 2006. After she had been selected for her seat in October 2009, the Mail repeated these claims. The coverage in the Mail prompted the attempt to deselect her, which itself was covered by the newspapers of record that GRuban mentions. These newspapers make reference to an affair in relation to the Mail's reporting of it triggering a reaction from a section of the constituency membership, as they felt that information had been withheld from them. (I added the results of the deselection vote to indicate that the concern was a minority view.) My points, as I made in the BLP Noticeboard last year, still stand in that the fuss re the Turnip Taleban is mentioned and backed up by cited references. It is not Wikipedia's role to repeat tabloid gossip itself, but the implications arising (from the reactions of some who were influenced by it) is covered, and cited references are provided.

It should be noted that at least 5 of the users who have inserted the information that I have removed have been blocked by Wikipedia administrators as sockpuppets. It was therefore entirely right that their edits should have been reversed. I notice that the references to her on Mark Field's page were removed (by Collect) in February 2013, but later added back by 213.105.28.79, one of the IP addresses that was temporarily blocked for sockpuppetry. I would agree with what Collect wrote and that this does not belong there in this detail. I also feel that the wording used by these blocked users, saying that she "admitted" an affair was somewhat loaded.

Having initiated the discussion of this matter in the first place, 2 responses were added by others (one from an IP address that had made only 1 previous contribution to Wikipedia, which was to vandalise an article) - I addressed their points in my subsequent reply on the Noticeboard, and no further response was received to challenge what I had written.

The Wikipedia page for Truss mentions her husband's name, and so links him (and by extension, their children) to the personal life section. I think that "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" is very strong here, so I stand by what I wrote on the BLP Noticeboard on 3 February 2013. I don't see it as censorship, but a non-sensationalist view of the subject, which is something different. I don't think that "moral outrage" is sufficient to justify inclusion of titillating aspects of tabloid gossip. Note also that political figures are bound to create opposing viewpoints and it is realistic to assume that opponents will wish to include what they perceive as negative details. But I don't think that should override the fair and objective non-sensationalist style of writing - something that I have sought to do, but I don't pretend that I always get it right - hence my raising the issue myself in the first instance on the BLP Noticeboard. Upswift (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Upswift: Thank you, very well put. I have no problem with the way the information is presented at this point in the article. You are correct that we are not a tabloid, and the paragraph in question ultimately does reference this controversy. It's certainly better than what has been added in the past. And I'd agree that WP:NPF applies here as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, still believe we should mention that it was an alleged affair. As the IP writes, this is exactly the case described in WP:PUBLICFIGURE - a politician accused of an affair, covered by a multiplicity of reliable newspapers. Surely that hypothetical case can be assumed to have hypothetical less prominent relatives; it's not much of an affair if the two people involved are single. We aren't writing much of an article if we say - "There was a scandal, but we won't tell you what it was about." We don't have to dwell on it, but a sentence or two seems required. --GRuban (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: I won't deny your point, certainly. How would you word a change to that? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

GRuban, we evidently don't agree. The accusation of the affair was made in a tabloid newspaper. The "reliable newspapers" make reference to it only in the context of the subsequent attempt to deselect her which was triggered by the repeat of the accusations in the Mail. That controversy is specifically referenced in the Candidate section, as FreeRangeFrog acknowledges, and there are cited references included. You can argue the other way as you have done, but on BLP issues it is right to err on the side of caution, and, in my view, the existing words strike an appropriate balance. Upswift (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all right; I'll try to convince you, but it would be a dull world if everyone agreed all the time, wouldn't it? :-) If the accusation had been left in a tabloid, we would also leave it. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it once the reliable sources do. It's neither the first nor the last scandal that was first broken in a tabloid that we cover, for example Gary_Hart#1988 presidential campaign and the Donna Rice affair; John Edwards extramarital affair. This affair does not seem as influential as those, so shouldn't get as much play, which is why I recommend a sentence or two only. And as for the wording, for the Frog, I'd change the current "claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members." to "claiming that she had attempted to cover up a 2005 affair with Conservative MP Mark Field." and use The Telegraph and The Independent articles as references. (I can't see the entirety of the Times article, so don't know if it names Field, but the Telegraph and Independent both do, and they also seem clear that the affair took place, even the Times seems to only use "accused" about the coverup, not the affair.) --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. The fact that something was once published in a tabloid doesn't mean it is forever off limits; once it's a subject of proper coverage in a proper source it might merit inclusion here. I do think the "withheld information" treatment isn't sufficiently informative in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, but suggest that the initial reporting of the affair be definitively attributed to the Mail, including an inline explanation of the Mail being a gossip rag. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, which are well-made, although I'm still not convinced, as the instances of Gary Hart and John Edwards relate to activities after the person had already been elected and become a public figure. Also, it doesn't address the WP:NPF issue and the presumption in favour of family members. In any case, the words she "attempted to cover up" are stronger than implied in the two cited references: the Telegraph says "kept secret" which is a more passive activity, and the Independent article says that it was Conservative Central Office that withheld the information, rather than Truss. Upswift (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would accept "claiming that she had kept secret" or "claiming that she had not revealed". --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Although an improvement, and backed up by the Telegraph citation, even these two phrasings do not reflect the context of what she obliged to reveal, and are contradicted by the wording of the Eastern Daily Press article (already referenced in the article) and the quote by Sir Jeremy Bagge in the Independent article. At the selection meeting, Truss was not asked to reveal anything - Sir Jeremy makes clear in his Independent quote that it was Conservative Central Office (CCO) that was responsible for this withheld information at the meeting. CCO would undoubtedly have been aware at the application stage of the selection of Truss's past - I presume that Truss herself would have volunteered the information at this stage; I have certainly seen no indication that she didn't. So, as she was not given an opportunity to raise it at the selection meeting itself, it is (given the context of the selection protocol) misleading (whatever the Telegraph says) to suggest that she herself did not reveal it. The apparent contradiction in the reporting of the Telegraph and Independent illustrates the danger of relying on what are regarded as "reliable sources". The fact is that the information was withheld from members at the meeting, as the article currently states. Given my various earlier comments, I am not persuaded that further details on this are required in any case. Upswift (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the curent wording. It is quite an elegant way of presenting the agreed facts in a non-sensationalist way, supported by references. Irrespective of the other reasons already listed, reference has already been made here to WP:NPF. One of the elements of this policy is that Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care in relation to people that are not well known. This clearly applies in this situation with regard to her husband. He has not done anything to court publicity in relation to this, yet reference here to his wife would directly affect his reputation. You could argue that if he had subsequently divorced her citing adultery then that would have been a proactive step on his part that could be referenced. But he hasn't. So this alone makes it a different situation to the contrary examples that have been provided in this discussion. It is not desirable for the affair to be specifically mentioned in the article. The original poster on this thread admits that he or she is motivated by moral outrage but that is not something that should motivate Wikipedia articles. We are better than that. Patrick Brand (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As written above, every affair has a hurt spouse (if not two!), that's what makes it an affair. It's not much of a scandal if it's a relationship between two singles. And, as written above, an affair just like this one, is exactly the situation in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so presumably the damage to hypothetical spouse has been taken into account. Avoiding damage to the innocent spouse doesn't mean we can't write about any politicians with affairs that get long mileage in The Times and The Telegraph and The Independent and The Guardian and The New Statesman, we absolutely can and should. Otherwise we just aren't doing justice to the article and our readers. "We are better than that" does not mean we can't write about anything that harms anyone, we'd be an encyclopedia of blank pages then. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The situation here is not analogous to the one you describe. The accusation of the affair in this case was made before she was an elected politician and was, at the time, WP:LPI. Just because something is mentioned in reliable sources does not mean that justice is not being done being done to our readers if it is not included. In fact, all information on Wikipedia should be sourced as much as possible. The rules are tighter for living people, and, in particular, there are specific policies for WP:NPF which apply here. The burden of evidence is on those adding material, and it has not been shown that this has been satisfied. The dispute is mentioned in the Candidate section. You say that we would be an encyclopedia of blank pages if we can't write about anything that harms anyone; this suggests that you believe Wikipedia should contain only information that harms someone which is an odd statement. Patrick Brand (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, we shouldn't write about Barack Obama's birthplace, since he was very low profile while being born! The important part isn't how low profile she was at the time, but that she is a notable politician now, and that this is something that has gotten extensive coverage by reliable sources now. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back making a second comment, perhaps I shall become a proper contributor yet! I just wanted to clarify something that had been misinterpreted from my original post, and then to highlight some obvious problems with Upswift's (and now Patrick Brand's) position. So, to clarify, my 'moral outrage' does not relate to Truss's affair, which I know very little detail of; it relates to the way her Wikipedia page has been consistently censored over a period of years. Is this indeed censoring or just reporting the facts in a non-sensationalist way, as Upswift (and now Patrick Brand) would suggest? To focus the discussion, compare a wording that would satisfy me (and which I hereby propose) with the current wording favoured by Upswift. My proposed wording: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about her extramarital affair had been withheld from the members." [or better - ie more informatively - 'her extramarital affair with Conservative MP Mark Field']

The current wording: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about the candidate had been withheld from the members."

Upswift's comments imply that my proposed wording would be 'sensationalist,' 'titillating,' repetition of 'tabloid gossip'. It is worth remarking on Upswift's attempts to undermine the fact of the affair (which seems at odds with his otherwise excellent knowledge of the incident). Upswift mentions the "affair" in quotation marks, he says the "accusation of the affair" was made in a tabloid newspaper, he says "it is not Wikipedia's role to repeat tabloid gossip". It is naff to quote dictionary definitions but the implication Upswift makes is that the fact of the affair is in question; gossip is defined as "...typically involving details which are not confirmed as true"; sensationalist is defined as using "...exaggerated material".

Compare Upswift's portrayal with the actual news coverage. For example, the Independent (referenced above): "The fact that Ms Truss had had an affair with the Tory MP Mark Field was well known in Westminster." Or from the BBC (see my original post): Mr Cameron said Ms Truss's affair had "been publicly known". Now that's the Prime Minister there, talking to the press! I understand Mark Field's affair with Ms Truss was cited by his wife in their divorce proceedings. The Mail may not be a reliable source but that does not mean it is incapable of reporting actual facts!!

Upswift has written the paragraph in the article which he says is non-sensationalist and informative, and Patrick Brand remarks on its elegance. To my mind, the only elegance of the current Candidate section is the way it obscures one significant omission (any mention of the affair) by the inclusion of insignificant information. Compare the news coverage with Upswift's paragraph. How many of the news sources mention that Jeremy Bagge was a former High Sheriff of Nottingham and a 7th Baronet? (few, some don't mention him at all). How many mention the 'Turnip Taliban'? (many, it's catchy!). How many mention the affair? (all of them).

But of course, Upswift's argument implicitly accuses every single media outlet (the Guardian, the BBC, the Independent, the Times etc) of sensationalism in their coverage of this story. I have a lot of problems with the media myself but Upswift (and Patrick Brand) would seek to commit Wikipedia to a form of non-sensationalism so strong that it involves the removal of information every news agency considers central to understanding the incident. (Imagine explaining the incident to your friend: 'They forced a vote to remove her because there was something about her past they only just found out'... 'Oh yes?..AND WHAT WAS THAT?')

(Just for a bit more perspective on this - I just saw Conservativehome's recent profile of Truss which even flags her as potential future Conservative leader. Presumably not an unsympathetic piece - and it still manages to include information about the affair. Yet more sensationalist, tabloid-gossip-repeating junk... Are you not titillated?)

Besides erroneously casting doubt on the facts of the affair, Upswift has, as I understand it, two arguments for not including the information. Patrick Brand has made each of these arguments separately in his two posts. Those arguments appear to be: i) WP:NPF applying to Elizabeth Truss herself, on the basis that Truss only became a public figure when elected to Parliament. As I stated in my original post, it is disingenuous to argue that someone only becomes a public figure when the votes have been counted confirming their election to public office. My point was not addressed by Upswift. As if to undermine his own point Patrick Brand links to the LPI page where someone who has participated in an 'election campaign' is explicitly identified as high-profile! This is now the second instance in this discussion where it is not even a case of interpreting Wikipedia policy so much as reading it! (just for the sake of completeness, I note Ms Truss ran campaigns to be elected to parliament in 2001 and 2005, before being elected in 2009). (Btw even if this argument were true I'm not sure it would be valid).

ii) the second argument is about protecting the reputation of Ms Truss's husband. I would request that Upswift or Patrick Brand explain this argument as fully as possible so that it can be picked over, as I fear if I respond to it as I understand it now I will merely be caricaturing it. [I hope it is not improper of me to note that Upswift's desire to remove information about the affair appears to proceed this second argument. Upswift was removing information about the affair back in 2011 (using argument i above), as far as I can see he only first mentioned the family as a justification when removing the information in 2013. I say this because if someone is using reason to justify an already fixed position (as opposed to holding a position which follows from their reason) it is liable to become tiresome to debate with them using reason.] thanks, onetimecommenter Sorry, I should have said she was elected in 2010, of course. Onetimecommenter

Hello again, Onetimecommenter (and welcome back). Thank you for making your points; I think you might be surprised that we appear to agree on more than you realise. But you have raised a number of assertions, so it might be helpful if I try to address these in a series of numbered points.

1. You say that mentions of the affair had “been consistently removed by the user Upswift”. You say that as if consistency is a bad thing. You say that “references to the … affair have been independently inserted by many different users”. I presume that you mean users such as Daily Blue91, Yum Yum Hornblower, 213.105.28.79, Sillyputty87 and DimSum38? They are not independent, but are the same person under a variety of different aliases, who has been disrupting many articles for several years, and has been repeatedly blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive for details.

2. Irrespective of this, the wording of the edits by these users are not accurate anyway. For example the edits by Daily Blue91 are contradicted by what Sir Jeremy Bagge says in the quote from the Independent article that GRuban mentioned:” I have absolutely nothing against her as an individual. I voted for her and what she got up to four years ago doesn't concern me. What concerns me is Conservative Central Office, the headquarters, failed to actually advise us”. This makes clear that, in Sir Jeremy’s words, it was the failure to be informed that was the concern rather than the content of the tabloid allegations themselves.

3. This quote from Sir Jeremy also supports my statement that “the reason for the failed deselection attempt was also due to the perception of how the Con Party had handled the selection process”.

4. It wasn’t me that inserted the wordy description of “High Sheriff of Norfolk (not Nottingham! – no Robin Hood connection!) Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet”; that was added by the aforementioned Yum Yum Hornblower. I think this is slightly clunky, so probably agree with you on this! But it doesn’t do any harm.

5. More recent sockpuppets have made inserts that she “admitted” an affair. As I have argued elsewhere, I think the use of this word is somewhat loaded and does not convey neutrality.

6. I also amended an insertion about the affair by Trident13 which made an assertion that the affair led directly to Field’s divorce, when there were in fact reports that his marriage was already in difficulties at the time, as Field’s own Wikipedia page also indicated.

7. You yourself mention that the affair was with a member of the Shadow Cabinet. This is not true; Field was never a member of the Shadow Cabinet. I assume you got this from the Mail article that you mention, but this is another example of inaccurate reporting.

8. There is not much space to develop an argument within the box for each edit, so I wouldn’t read anything into some reasons being provided by me in a 2011 edit, but others not appearing until 2013. Indeed, as I mentioned, it was me who initiated the first discussion on this subject on the BLP Noticeboard in February 2013 where I outlined my concerns.

9. There were, as you noted, 2 responses to my initial post on the Noticeboard. I responded to both of those, and received no further arguments against what I had written. Indeed, one of the two responses suggested a section on childcare reforms. I wrote a balanced paragraph on this, two-thirds of which was about negative reaction to the proposals. Over a year on, nobody has challenged the objectivity of this piece.

10. I was keen to raise the issue on the BLP Noticeboard as it is much better for these issues to be discussed in a relatively civilised, rational manner, where differing views can be explored and challenged, rather than as a series of edit wars on the subject’s page itself. This is hardly censorship – I have initiated open discussion of the matter, and have contributed to this thread too.

11. So, you can see that the words that I deleted when mention of the affair was inserted was done with full justification, because they were either inaccurate, not neutral or contradicted by other sources. The same applies to the suggested words provided this week by GRuban, as I have explained in earlier comments. You then assert what you perceive to be my reaction to the wording that you yourself have proposed. Not so; each of your two proposals is neutral and (as far as I know) accurate, as it includes the assertion (as expressed by Sir Jeremy Bagge, as we have seen) that the concern related to the information being withheld. In fact, to demonstrate that the affair was not still ongoing, I would add (within commas) “reported to have taken place several years previously” before the words “had been withheld from the members”. This neutrality and accuracy and non-misleading phrasing is in contrast with previous attempts at wording, for the reasons that I have described above. I am not denying the fact of the affair – but I would argue that the original reporting by the Mail was for reasons of titillation. And as I pointed out, the subsequent reporting three years later by more reliable sources mentioned the affair only in relation to the accusation (against Conservative Central Office) that mention of it had been withheld at the selection meeting. My argument against explicitly mentioning the details of the withheld information involves the points made in 13 (which is at least arguable) and 14 (which is strong) below – but see my possible resolution at the end of point 14.

12. It should be noted that (before I made any edits) the original edit to this article that included the Candidate issue didn’t explicitly mention the affair either. Instead, it mentioned that “revelations about her private life were revived”.

13. Irrespective of the points above on the accuracy or otherwise of information that has been inserted by others, there is the issue of when matters in a public figure’s past become pertinent. Patrick Brand mentions WP:LPI in his second comment. I hadn’t seen this page; what I was thinking was the assertion by David Cameron (which is referenced on his Wikipedia page in relation to questions on whether he had taken drugs) that politicians have a right to a private life before they come into politics. Commentators have interpreted this as referring to before his parliamentary career, ie before becoming an MP. I realise that statements alone by David Cameron do not dictate Wikipedia policy, but I also note that Truss was not regarded as sufficiently high profile to have a Wikipedia page until after she was elected as an MP. So the point is at least arguable, but not necessarily conclusive.

14. The WP:NPF policy has been raised several times in this thread. For me, it remains strong. Patrick Brand, in his first comment, describes the issue well. The subject’s husband is low-profile in his own right, but by having his name linked to her on this page in relation to her affair could easily affect his reputation. This could involve stigma attached to him resulting from speculation of the details of the affair. He has not (as far as I can see) made any public statement on this, or sought to comment on this in any way. This is in contrast to the examples of Gary Hart and John Edwards where the affected spouse made statements about the allegations. These two examples indicate that there are circumstances where the inclusion of affairs can be justified on Wikipedia; although it undoubtedly caused distress for the wronged partners, their active participation in the story meant that it could be argued that WP:NPF did not apply. So GRuban’s blanket dismissal of this point in the case of affairs is not accurate. The circumstances of this situation are different as I (and Patrick Brand) have explained. These policies exist within Wikipedia for a reason, so cannot be ignored when they apply, as I and others have argued on this thread. But perhaps it can be resolved? It’s not ideal, but I suggest making an alteration by removing the name of her husband from the panel on the right hand side. If this removal was made, the strength of the WP:NPF argument would be reduced, therefore possibly enabling the insertion of your proposed words (as expanded by me in point 11 above) in the Candidate section. Would you find that acceptable? Upswift (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. We are agreed that some of the previous edits to Truss's page which included information about this matter were badly worded and/or inappropriate. However I had seen previous edits of Truss's page which seemed satisfactory to me and was most struck not so much by the refinements you had made so much as the fact that a key piece of information had been removed. I agree fully with several of your points; I have some reservations about others, but am pleased to find us in agreement on what for me was the substantive point. I would accept your resolution in point 14 as a way to move forward- removing her spouse's name, and including the additional wording about the affair we have each proposed. I would not wish to push the matter further, but in passing, I can imagine some Wikipedia editors might think the protection we offer to the spouse is too great. His name is mentioned in a small box away from where the affair is to be mentioned neutrally. To affect his reputation the reader would have to assume (or know) that he was indeed married to Truss at the time of the affair, and as you suggest the reader would also have to engage in further speculation in order to attach stigma to him. I am myself not confident what one can reasonably assume about a spouse in an affair; a reader might equally speculate that he had been noble and loving in standing by his wife and working at their marriage. I also think it would be impracticable for Wikipedia, as a general rule, to try and protect individuals from possible speculation prompted by articles (as opposed to just protecting them from explicitly stated or clearly implied facts in the article). But I do not wish for this quibble with your proposal to prevent what for me would still be an improvement of the article. Finally, I would suggest including your addition to the sentence - “reported to have taken place several years previously” - in brackets rather than quotation marks for the purposes of sentence structure. Are we satisfied with: "However, shortly afterwards, some members of the constituency Association, dubbed the 'Turnip Taliban' and led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk Sir Jeremy Bagge, 7th Baronet, objected to Truss's selection, claiming that information about her extramarital affair with Conservative MP Mark Field (reported to have taken place several years previously) had been withheld from the members." ? It's grammatically unwieldy, but would suffice. Thanks, Onetimecommenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetimecommenter (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So the logic is - if a politician has an affair, and all the largest and most respectable newspapers in the UK write about it, but her husband doesn't give a statement, we shouldn't write about it? That can't be right. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the logic at all; there might be many reasons why it could be included. But, in so doing, we should be careful to ensure that other Wikipedia policies (such as the presumption in privacy of family members who are otherwise low-profile) are not contravened. Anyway, it appears that Onetimecommenter and I have reached a consensus on this. And I have no objection to the use of brackets rather than commas. In the absence of further comments, I would invite Onetimecommenter to make the agreed edits if he or she would like to; otherwise I'll do it myself in a few days if it hasn't been done by then and there are no further objections. Cheers. Upswift (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. (To the best of my ability, grumble, grumble wall of text grumble grumble 14 points, grumble grumble God hisself only need 10 grumble grumble) --GRuban (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi

Please review the page for Farshad Fotouhi. His page has been actively subject to several attempts to reflect disputed information. Some people have been bringing their disagreements with his management to Wikipedia, and putting every negative online post they can find about him on his page. I really don't think these kind of disputes that are still active should find their ways into Wikipedia pages. I honestly don't have the time to constantly argue with an editor who seems to be on a vendetta against Fotouhi. I truly appreciate if a neutral editor looks into this.

Here are some information about the claims brought up on his page: [27] "Wayne State University is standing by Farshad Fotouhi, dean of the College of Engineering, whom faculty members have accused of lacking integrity and, last week, sparked the resignation of a longtime professor. "I really want to emphasize that Dean Fotouhi is doing a good job," Margaret Winters, provost, said Monday. "A great deal of what we see going on here is that some older, more established faculty frankly don't want to see change." Winters said Fotouhi had been hired several years ago to make key changes in the college, such as raising research productivity and boosting enrollment in engineering, and that he was meeting those goals -- to some professors' chagrin." "Winters said the university had thoroughly looked into claims against Fotouhi on two separate occasions and that the dean had come up clean." Dr wiki editor (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The it's just professors complaining argument doesn't hold any water. Donors are complaining, too. You can source that with Crain's Detroit Business. Undergrad students are complaining as well, but they don't want to go on record. Unless... you sought one out who's either recently graduated or transferred to another university. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some edits to neutral the content, I saw weak opinionated reports attacking him and removed them. Looking at User talk:Detroit Joseph's contributions, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Detroit_Joseph&offset=&limit=500&target=Detroit+Joseph - many blanked for policy violations appear conflicted and opinionated about Fotouhi - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, call me opinionated. Try reading Crain's Detroit Business and the Detroit News. Also try this: name 5 donors who stopped a contribution in protest of a former dean. No, just name 3. No, just one, give me just one. What about one professor who resigned in protest of a former dean? Can you name just one? Detroit Joseph (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop edit-warring contentious material into a BLP. The section is written tendentiously and does not present a balanced perspective of the controversy. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that User:Detroit Joseph has a glaringly-obvious conflict of interest in regards to Fotouhi's biography. On the article talk page, he disclosed what is essentially a personal vendetta against the man and has made a number of wide-ranging personal attacks on the article subject.

His edits are not in keeping with policy on biographical content and are clearly designed to promote his personal feelings and push his personal POV about Fotouhi. I believe that he should voluntarily refrain from any edits to this article, and I intend to request a topic ban if that request is not heeded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Read Crain's Detroit Business and the Detroit News articles. Let's see you conclude he's a saint from the facts you read there. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on Detroit Joseph editing this article. I have reviewed the edit history of the the article and the talk page, evidence of a vendetta against the subject of the article and continued posting of content in violation of WP:BLP (including edit summaries that were previously redacted), trolling of editor talk pages. There are no signs that the editor will voluntarily refrain from further edits. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ban discussions (or anything else that requires admin action) need to be taken to WP:ANI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks FreeRangeFrog. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

See ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Detroit Joseph. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been topic banned. Oh well. But the record must reflect that the "disputed information" is the information that has not been published in Crain's Detroit Business or the Detroit News. Those are considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong), and those sources show that Fotouhi has hindered Greg Auner's breast cancer research, caused Paul Strauss to halt a $2 million donation to the college and caused James Woodyard to resign his tenured faculty position. You don't have to go to some random blog to find these facts. You have to go to two of Detroit's most respected publications. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified what a topic ban is for Detroit Joseph here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone with the username of Corruption_Watchpitbull which was created 4 days ago [[28]], right after Detroit Joseph was topic banned, posted the same tendentious content [[29]] on the page! Dr wiki editor (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not the same. Corruption Watchdog did not mention Silanegate, nor did he mention the accusations of racism. Maybe Silanegate would have happened anyway if you install as dean of an engineering college someone who is not really an engineer. Playing the race card is also a losing proposition, as Kwame Kilpatrick clearly demonstrated. Instead, Corruption Watchpoodle focused on the lost millions of dollars and the tenured professor who resigned.

I have an idea for you, Dr wiki editor or whatever you want to call yourself today: claim that you yourself are Farshad Fotouhi and that you want the article deleted under WP:VANITY. Truth to the Forefront (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are obvious sockpuppets and you are going to end up banned from Wikipedia entirely. You must think we just fell off a turnip truck. Have a nice day. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Detroit_Joseph NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obvious sockpuppet accounts - two now - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles Keating

[30] from SFGate is being used as a source in a BLP for:

In 1964–65, Keating produced Perversion for Profit, a film featuring announcer George Putnam. It was a survey of then-available prurient and obscene materials, and asserted that pornography led to moral decay societal perils and stated that "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit."[31]

The problems IMO are first that the article is not RS by Wikipedia standards for statements of fact about a person as the article clearly is based on opinion:

A short film like "Perversion for Profit" is a case in point. Made in 1961 with the financial help of Charles Keating (the same man convicted in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s), this shrill and sometimes comical diatribe about the perils of obscene magazines works at several levels for today's viewer. At first, the cornball gravitas of a bespectacled newsman shouting alarmist narration creates a kind of ironic distance. The cynical viewer can easily titter at lines such as, "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit." But as the parade of girlie magazine covers, men's physique pictorials and campy S&M leaflets continues, the film betrays a kind of prurience the filmmakers could hardly have intended. What results is a remarkable visual record of midcentury underground literature and sexual appetites, and a gloss on the values of the society that condemned them.

And secondly that the quote added here has nothing specifically to do with Keating in the first place as he is not credited as the writer of the film. In fact, most "producers" are not he authors of the film, nor are they the "bespectacled newsman."

I suggested that

In 1964–65, Keating produced Perversion for Profit, a film featuring announcer George Putnam. It was a survey of then-available prurient and obscene materials, and asserted that pornography led to moral decay.[31]

Is fully sufficient and WP:BLP compliant, and that we ought not insert words by implication into Keating's mouth, which the version being sought specifically does. (Noting Keating dies very recently and is thus still covered by that policy) Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that Keating is covered by WP:BDP, this is not a BLP issue in any way, shape, or form. It's a content dispute about the optimal way to cover a notable aspect of Keating's life. Please take it back to the article talkpage and discuss it in that context. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- please read the article talk page before implying that I am not using it -- it makes for far more civil discourse. And BLP absolutely applies to "recently deceased" people in practice. I suggest that using an edit to imply that someone wrote something they did not write is properly before this noticeboard.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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.[

seems reasonably clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you read my comment before responding to it. I agreed with you that WP:BDP applies. I said "I agree that Keating is covered by WP:BDP". I don't know how I could be any clearer. So you don't need to try to bludgeon me with policy snippets, because I'm trying to agree with you. I asked you to go back to the talkpage—back, because you were already using it—instead of trying to use BLP to win a dispute that has nothing to do with BLP. MastCell ^Talk 03:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@MC - this is a post seeking opinions of others about an issue which falls under WP:BLP. And clearly falls under WP:BLP. Contentious claims which are weakly sourced, as AYW points out, are specifically a proper issue at this noticeboard, and has nothing to do with any motives to "win" as you ungraciously describe them. Cheers - but I seem to see you a lot replying to me at various venues indeed. Collect (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a brief look at this. Prior to recent article edits, the article twice attributed to the article subject (Keating) respective statements suggesting that porn is a commie conspiracy. But Keating wasn't saying that either time. The first time, he was merely quoting a congressional report, and the second time was something someone said in a film that he produced. It's fair to point out at BLPN that wacko statements should not be attributed to people unless they really are properly attributable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see one issue that might be of concern. The edit claims Keating produced this film, while the source states he lent financial assistance. Since "producer" is often used to describe a person who manages the film, including handling the money and content decisions, this edit Collect refers to suggests that Keating helped create this content. If being associated with this content violates BLP, then the entire statement is violating BLP because it essentially says Keating is more involved in a contentious activity then the source actually stated.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, but this source says he did produce the film. Assuming he did produce it, still, lots of film producers have despised the films they produced, and even if they love the films it's very unusual to connect a particular line of dialogue with the producer. This was undoubtedly just an editing miscue, which could have got fixed without BLPN, but involving BLPN wasn't wrong either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources explicitly connect these views to Keating. For example, Eric Schlosser wrote: "Behind the smut peddlers, in Keating's view, lurked the nation's enemies; the rising tide of obscenity was clearly 'part of the Communist conspiracy'." I don't see a BLP/BDP issue here, just a need to pay more attention to actual reliable sources rather than indulging in strange speculation. MastCell ^Talk 07:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Um -- try looking for the full quote -- which was that the sale of porn was done my "part of the Communist conspiracy" - and the use of partial quotes is a sure way to violate BLP.. Indeed, out of context quotes are not a good thing in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the source, and I don't see how this quote is "partial" in the slightest. Schlosser clearly links Keating to the erstwhile pornography/Communism nexus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the "part of the communist conspiracy" line was Keating quoting Congress?[31] As such, the text of our Wikipedia article ought to say so, which it now does. I also note that WP:MOS says: "Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks...." This rule is supposed to make it very clear when a quoted person is quoting someone else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton-to-Hillary Clinton requested move blp question

Not a BLP issue.--ukexpat (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

A hotly disputed move request is coursing along at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is sought to be moved to Hillary Clinton, a version of her name used in plenty of reliable sources and by Clinton herself throughout her 2008 presidential campaign. But the contention has been raised on the page that moving the page to remove the "Rodham" would in fact violate BLP. Is such a proposition at all intelligible under BLP? That a person would somehow be violated in their personage by the use of a title which not only is widely used in indubitably reliable source publications, but used indiscriminately by the person themself? Perhaps a definitive determination as to this point would elucidate future disputations. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see no reason whatsoever why WP:BLP would even remotely suggest that using a name by which a person is commonly known as the title for a biography was improper. It is normal Wikipedia practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(nb-I'm participating there and voting for the move) I really think the idea that using Hilary Clinton would somehow violate BLP is absurd. BLP is intended to prevent harm to a person, not to ensure that what is written in 24 point bold font aligns perfectly with their preferred name. Now, there might be a case for BLP if the most common name for a subject was hateful or mocking, the subject does not use such a name themselves, and the subject had communicated their preferences clearly for a different name. An example of this would be Son of Sam who now goes by the name Son of hope to dissociate himself from the negative associations with that persona, but we still use Son of Sam in the running text - but people don't go rushing to the BLP defence of characters like that. I'm sure there are other murderers with rather gruesome monikers given by the media, even if such a name was commonly known using it as a title may go too far. However here we know Clinton ran for office using HC, she ended her campaign calls with HC, and the word 'HC' is not offensive or demeaning in any way, so therefore there is zero case to make that HC could possible cause the subject any imaginable harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)|

A month ago I would have said this can't be a serious question. But sadly I'm afraid someone is serious (or using a monkey wrench). Absolutely not a BLP issue. And saying this is "absurd" is an understatement. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2014 (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.

Alex Day

From around March 2014, numerous allegations have been made against Alex Day claiming that he has been sexually manipulative and abusive. A lot of the allegations and discussion have been happening on Tumblr, and there have been a few articles about the allegations (Daily Dot, Newmediarockstars, Nyulocal, BBC Newsbeat).

A number of users have tried adding sections concerning this, but they have mostly been reverted due to poor sources (are any of the above good sources?), and a number of people vandalised the page before it was semi-protected.

User:Finbob83 Has been making some edits, but I'm not sure whether they meet Wikipedia's standards or if they should be removed.

It would be helpful if some more experienced editors could watch the article to make sure the new edits meet the standards for WP:BLP

rdm_box 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdmbox (talk • contribs)

Suggestions of sexual abuse obviously need to be taken incredibly seriously, and, looking at those four sources, I'm not sure that they really amount to enough to justify such a claim about a living person anywhere on Wikipedia - they just don't really seem reliable enough to me. Personally, I'd prefer to see sources with more editorial oversight and a higher degree of fact-checking than a student newspaper and a website that exclusively deals with Internet culture.

Having looked over history of the article on Alex Day, I am also a little concerned that editors may be attempt to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs", which is obviously not what Wikipedia is for. For example, that this post accuses Wikipedia administrators of "silencing those with legitimate allegations against Alex Day" raises a massive red flag. Wikipedia is not the place for "allegations" unless they can be backed up by reliable, third-party sources (and, sometimes, not even then). If enough such sources can be provided, then it may be appropriate to include them in the article.

V o

BEDD 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with

V o

BEDD. So far the BBC is the only reliable source and we need to be careful not to go beyond what it attests to. Some recent edits have also strayed into synthesis by conflating Day's actual comments with wider issues of celebrity conduct and allegations. I've reworded the article section to (hopefully) stick more closely to the BBC source, but additional pairs of eyes might also be useful. Euryalus (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony Snegoff

Should be removed for irrelevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1310:2D1:C030:701C:E524:9157 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mike Scott (sheriff)

Mike Scott (sheriff) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP, which has no edit history aside from this article, is insisting on adding in unbalanced material about a relatively minor incident to this BLP. There is no dispute that the event happened, nor that it was covered by local media. However, in keeping with WP:NOTNEWS, specifically the parts about how "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and "...not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The policy is clear that "...the enduring notability of persons and events" should be considered. Also, when we use the essay WP:RECENTISM as a guide for behavior, it suggests a 10 year test. This would fail that test. They fact that a year later, it's not being covered is indicative of the fact that this incident is minor. Additionally, the IP tries to engage in some WP:SYNTH by claiming that this is somehow linked to the 2008 incident that is already included in the article. I've removed the material over BLP concerns about inserting this negative material about a minor incident, as I believe it gives it undue weight. In the limited amount of discussion the IP has made, his whole justification appears to be that he has a source and that Wikipedia isn't censored. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a misstatement of facts. In 2008, Scott was in a controversy over using Obama's middle name at a McCain/Palin rally. This was repudiated nationally by both McCain and Palin, and could be sourced nationally. Indeed, there was reportedly a federal investigation on the matter. In 2009, there was information that was widely reported that Scott was involved with a convicted felon, Dick Spence. Again, widely reported, but unable to get into the article due to the edit-warring by Niteshift36. The material that Niteshift36 is attempting to censor was widely covered, although again, attempts to add additional refs are impossible with the edit warring by Niteshift. It covers a letter written about one year ago where Scott uses the "N"-word (actually spelled out) in a letter to the NAACP.

This does not even go into his comments on a local congressman, statements about a pending lawsuit and "war" with the press, or the allegations that a prisoner was tortured to death. Again, plenty of reliable sources. 173.74.249.6 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, nor that the Cato Institute noted that his department had a higher rate of officer misconduct than any other agency in the nation, outpacing New Orleans, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Oakland, and Maricopa County. Or his complaint to a local university that was hosting a rap artist (complaint based on race according to the news headline "White Sheriff Scolds Black College President for Hosting Rap Concert"). 173.74.249.6 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And that response you just gave is all over the map. What is does is evidence that you have an agenda to add as much negative to the article that you can. I didn't misstate anything. Pick something we're talking about and move forward with the discussion. You can't "solve" everything at the same time. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the justification offered for removing this material is quite weak. The article does not have a great many sources (and it's hard to tell what most of them are, without clicking on them). Adding this material starts to develop the article in a proper way -- and if anything coverage of this incident might help to establish Scott's notability, which in my view is in doubt certainly when material/sources of this sort are excluded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really not that weak. The incident (right now we're talking about one thing) did occur, but it was a minor incident that really received no significant attention outside of the immediate area and then that attention disappeared in short order. In other words, it lacked enduring notability. Hysterical proclamations about "spelling out the N-word" (which is sort of ironic from someone invoking NOTCENSORED as part of their defense) don't make it more notable a year later. The WP:SPA keeps talking about "widely reported" and it really wasn't that widely reported. The 2008 Obama incident WAS widely reported. The items he is trying to force into the article to satisfy this obvious agenda were not. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I stumbled upon this edit war from a recent changes patrol, and it seems like the stuff the IP editor added was very reasonable. It's quite short and seems to present the incident from a neutral point of view. Maybe it could be trimmed a bit, but I don't think it's undue weight, because these controversies are a large part of why this sheriff is notable. Perhaps other sections could be expanded, but just because the other sections are short, does not mean that this section has undue weight. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The stuff he is adding has nothing to do with his notability. Nothing. He is notable because he's an elected official heading a large agency. Look at it for just a minute..... ALL the material that the IP is adding occurred AFTER the Wikipedia article and AFTER the 2008 incident. He was already notable. Saying that his notability is do "in large part" to these incidents is not only false, it doesn't even make sense. The article was written in 2008, mainly to highlight the 2008 Obama controversy. How does claiming that these non-events 5 years later are "a large part" of his notability" seem logical? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability isn't necessarily binary though. I think this addition helps contribute to it. Perhaps the new content could be scaled down to be proportional to how notable the incident was, but it's worth at least a mention, rather than a complete removal. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just can't agree. These were both very minor incidents that never gained significant attention outside of the local area were quickly abandoned by the local media. Why? Because it wasn't that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you could compromise with the IP editor and trim down the section to match its significance, perhaps even to a sentence or two. It won't help the discussion to firmly insist on absolute removal. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to discuss it. His response was little more than "I have sources", "Wikipedia is not censored" and then a bunch of baseless COI allegations. That's why I brought the matter here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The "controversy" is worth at most about ten words -- the length of the BLP coverage is UNDUE by a mile. Many citizens and media outlets have decried the remark as divisive and unacceptable for an elected public official. is a broad claim with gossamer sourcing. What we have left is

Scott mentioned Barack Obama's middle name at a Palin rally, which was immediately disavowed by the Palin campaign. Scott defended his use of the middle name, and said he used it with "no intention.

All the rest is simply UNDUE fluff at this point. Collect (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There a lots of biography articles where someone who is notable per Wikipedia standards yet is little known outside their area becomes subject to the 24 hour news cycle for some unadvised comments they made. I think these incidents should be noted, but I think that most articles, this one included, provide far too much. I suggest avoiding extensive use of direct quotes and chronological descriptions. They make it sound like a tabloid story rather than an encyclopedia article. Just say something like, "Scott attracted controversy in 2008 for using the middle name of the U.S. Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama, at a Republican fundraiser." Since this type of thing comes up all the time, it might be advisable to discuss it at the guidelines for BLPs. TFD (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is NOT really the Obama incident. It's notable enough for inclusion. It's been in the article since the start. That's not the material the SPA is trying to force in and that's being contested. What IS being contested is the minor stuff about the local NAACP office in 2013, not the 2008 Obama name incident. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually -- the name incident is also being discussed here -- that is what happens when any post is made on this noticeboard, and I assure you TFD and I are not in any cahoots on this, to be sure. The incident was and remains minor, with no resulting action of any sort at any level. The single sentence (his or mine) is sufficient for the actual value of the incident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that and I made no allegation of anyone tag teaming here. I do, however, think this is clouding the true purpose of this discussion. The discussion was start regarding the 2013 events. There is no reason why the discussion of the 2008 event can't continue on the article talk page, as it has been. I believe that keeping the two issue separate will be more productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

S. S. Rajamouli

Besides being similar to many pages arising out of the Telegu Film industry in its advertorial style, this page should flagged for non-existent references and edits by a non-person. Further, references provided often do not support the material they are attached to. For example:

"He has directed blockbusters like Vikramarkudu and Maryada Ramanna, which were remade in various Indian languages, with successful reviews [5][6]" For instance, reference 5 does not exist, and reference 6 is barely supportive of the content it supposedly is referenced for.

I do not dispute S. S. Rajamouli as a person of note. Specifically it is my opinion that

This article, and the articles on films connected to this industry, fails miserably when it comes to NPOV - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
The articles in this genre should also be reviewed with Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest in mind.
Mass Communications faculty in India need to work to educate students that Paid News is considered a problem and not a form of legitimate journalism.

Mr. Pacific (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow (again)

There is a claim that somehow a "consensus" on the talk page allows these maligning comments [32] about a living person to be maintained in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The "Happy Father's Day" tweet was removed. The rest of the content, dealing directly with father-son estrangement, is valid, pertinent, balanced and long-discussed. User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been asked to discuss his bold edits on the article's talk page, but instead today he is choosing to edit war and to forum shop by bringing his issue here rather than the article's talk page.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The "rest " of it is about allegations of sexual molestation by a different person that have been found unsubstantiated by a court and say nothing about the actual subject of the article. Thats completely unacceptable both from a basic WP:BLP perspective, but also by attempting to establish claims about Farrow and Allen's relationship via WP:SYN.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think TRPOD's edits to this article are spot on.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything he's talking about was addressed in the RfC. Some of the very carefully worded language comes right from Woody Allen, where it's been vetted by years of consensus. High-profile allegations that initiated months of investigation that led to public statements by police, prosecutors and others is both allowed and expected, so long as both sides are presented, as is the case here, with Allen's denial forthrightly noted. And it's certainly not WP:SYN that a father and son have a relationship, and here is what each says about it.

But the larger issue is that we've had an RfC, he doesn't like the result, and he's try to do an end-run around it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Shaker Aamer

Someone negative information to the BLP based on an OPINION piece. The opinion is written by a fellow of a "neocon" think tank. The information have been added to the article in a way as if it were a verified truth. I think that is troublesome even if there were an attribution to the author. Let's stick to reliable sources. If the information were true than we would find it in reliable sources. I removed it and i kindly ask the people around here to watch the article in case someone reverts me. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor reinserted negative information about the subject [33] .

It seems to me that the editor claims that an OPINION based on an UNRELIABLE primary source would be sufficient to verify negative information in a BLP?

Anyone here thinks that that this is right?

I addition it has also been shown that the primary source (assessments) are UNRELIABLE. The US government itself says so.[34] (page 9) D/V

I removed it again. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing a few things, but that's not the immediate issue.

Is there a reason you are reporting this here instead of first taking it to the article's talk page so that it may be discussed by other editors involved in this article?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation are immediate issues and should be removed.

I brought it here because you keep inserting negative material without providing credible sources.

I have listed the issues here.

Please tell us why you think and OPINION based on an UNRELIABLE primary source would be good enough for an BLP? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Negative material? When you reverted, you kept charges based on the same material. You seem to be saying it's okay to put up wrong but positive material, even when it goes against others in an inflammatory way.

For those who hadn't been watching this article, the subject is a Guantanamo detainee, and the section is about the U.S. government's reasons for detaining him. The reasons were mostly classified until Wikileaks released it.

We've had a section on the government's "allegations." (That's not really the best word because it's not a criminal case, and that's part of the problem here.) The hapless reader comes across this article wanting to know *why* the guy was locked up, and the only thing he finds is lawyers and family members who say he's "innocent" (or would be, if this was a criminal case).

The section had a piece saying what the U.S. government's position was, adding "based partly on evidence given by" an unreliable detainee. Sound objective? No. The reference is about the detainee's family, and taking their position. This is highly misleading. In reality, the government's analysis was actually based on info from seven detainees. But that's not even the problem here.

You might then ask, what about the fact that one of the detainees was judged to be unreliable? That's already in there two paragraphs down. And now it's been reverted, it's in there twice.

The source I used was a WSJ piece by a writer who works for a group called "centrist" by Wikipedia. It's a reliable source, and he DOES NOT make any controversial claims at all. The only difference was that it now says there were seven other detainees.

Moreover, the seven detainees are easily checked. You can go to Wikileaks, read the file yourself, and count them. I used the source because I wanted the actual number, and didn't want to use the primary source.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Use reliable SECONDARY sources to verify the government's "allegations." Use only information that they have verified.

The WSJ is an OPINION unsuitable to verify such claims.

The Wikileaks file is an UNRELIABLE primary source. Verifying claims or even analysing it in any way is ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

You went even so far to take information from the OPINION and you combine it with your analysation of an unreliable primary source. That is as bad as it can get.

Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I maintain that the source is more than adequate, it's not the real problem.

You seem to want that there not be any explanation given for *why* the guy is being held.

But your position, if it was valid, would seem to mean that the source there now would also be invalid, seeing as how it also relies on this so-called "unverified" information. In fact, much of the section does. It's talking about the Wikileaks data.

BLP doesn't work that way. The source I used doesn't say anything other than explain what the government's position was. This is the very reason why newspapers are able to report on it while keeping within their own BLP guidelines. It fits their guidelines, and it fits ours.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the point is that the sources you provided are inadequate as i have laid out.

Nope, we should definitely mention why "the guy" (that says something about you) is held based on reliable secondary sources.

Nope, secondary sources had a look at the Wikileaks document. We can use the stuff the secondary sources have written about it.

Nope, BLP works exactly that way. Non-reliable sources are out of question.

Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My edit wasn't about an opinion, nor was it an interpretation.

And let's be clear here: We're not arguing about whether or not my source is factually correct. It clearly is. It was a simple number "seven" which is easily confirmed by finding the primary source and counting using five fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other.

I could easily find another source, and moving things around, but readers will want a number, and this source is acceptable.

Your quote from justice.gov is irrelevant. We're not talking about whether or not the government was correct. We're letting the reader know what number of sources the government had in that document. That number would remain *factual* regardless whether or not their final conclusions were correct.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already more than enough in the article from the 2007 assessment. You did not even bother to mention that the assessments are unreliable. I do suggest is to add justice.gov to the article, with text that makes clear that the assessments are unreliable. I suggest to add the quote that i have provided here. I still disagree with your suggested change that i have reverted for the given reasons. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but it appears I will have to find another source. I suspect that your government report would be in violation of SYNTH, but it would be a small issue compared to everything else that's wrong with this article.

That doesn't solve the other question about where you came from.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not User:Iqinn, are you?

For someone with a new account, you seem to know your way around.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Looking at your history i assume that you are an experienced editor. You should know what original research and reliable sources means. It seems to me that you want to cover up your blatant violations with an attack on me. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't explain who you are. You don't seem like a new user, and it would be good to be sure if you're really as new here as your account suggests.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Drop the stick, the Guantanamo assesments are unreliable according to the US goverment task force who has reviewed them.

"In other instances, the Task Force found prior assessments to be overstated. Some assessments, for example, contained allegations that were not supported by the underlying source document upon which they relied. Other assessments contained conclusions that were stated categorically even though derived from uncorroborated statements or raw intelligence reporting of undetermined or questionable reliability. "

[35] (page 9, D)

Don't you think that it cast a strange light on you to continue to claim that this would be a reliable source suitable for a BLP?

Are you working for the NSA, CIA or MILITARY or are you a military contractor? The way you want to push unreliable information into this article might suggest that. Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. I'm answering that point in the thread above.

Here, I'm just asking, again, whether or not you are a new user, or someone who edited under a different identity.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Still a question. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question relies on this source, which is clearly an op-ed. It cannot be used to support a statement of fact, per WP:NEWSORG. If the factual claim in it is true, it will surely be possible to find other sources for it; if other sources can't be found, then we should draw the obvious conclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to live with that. But on your characterization of there being a question of whether the factual claim is true, that's something that anyone would know if they looked at the original file that the sources were discussing. It's not a matter of believing the government's version because neither the source nor the disputed edit tried to make the claim that they did. It was only about the number of individuals that the government was talking about, and the current version only mentions one when the real number is seven. That remains a fixed number beyond dispute.

In any case, anybody who's really interested in the subject can read the original source themselves. Mostly, I'm tired of dealing with socks.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Mickey Rooney

Confirmed by NYT/LAT/Washington Post/CNN Connormah (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

TMZ is reporting his death, but per WP:BLP I think that we should wait for a reliable source confirmation. If we could get some eyes over there, it'd be great! Connormah (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Watching. I see USA Today has picked up the story as of 30 minutes ago so it's probably true. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail and CBC have also picked up on it... Connormah (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (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.

Fran Healy

Can someone take a look at this largely uncited article. My concern is that, without any citations whatever, references to Healy's relations with his father (and to his mother's relationship with his father) are potentially libellous. Perhaps someone more familiar with the guidelines could take a look. I have noted the article that a citation is required but have not removed the section. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation removed.--ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Gray

Could we get some eyes on this article please ? The notability of subject is marginal so sourcing isn't easy. I've been trying to improve the article but I don't think that is going to be possible, presumably because of the contentious nature of the topic. The article needs attention from experienced editors who can deal with the issues and the content decisions in a detached and disinterested way. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Piet_van_Wyk_de_Vries

The Piet van Wyk de Vries article seems to violate the biographies of living persons policies set down by Wikipedia. IMO the article reads like an advertisement for how awesome Piet van Wyk de Vries is. I know that the subject is quite esoteric, but hey ho... I would say that a re write is in order by a more experienced Wikipedia wrangler than I. 62.180.140.217 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues tags added.--ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peidong Yang

Peidong Yang, Professor of Chemistry at UC Berkeley, is not dead/missing on flight 370 as his page states.

http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/publications/news/2014/college_of_chemistry_launches_research_hub.php

Here is a press release/picture from April 2014 with him in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.239.70 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I've removed the assertion from Peidong Yang, where no source is cited to support it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Saman Kelegama and User:Saman_Kelegama

User:Saman_Kelegama appears to be Saman Kelegama and is treating the Saman Kelegama article as his personal CV (reverting WP:MOS corrections, maintenance tags, etc) and has not engaged on either his talk page or the articles talk page. Appears to be clearly notable. English may not be his first language. I'm at 3RR (maybe over, depending on how you count) and at my wit's end. External input or ideas welcomed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)