Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive100

Harsimrat Kaur Badal
Someone please keep an eye on this bio? Saw it for the first time today, a massive BLP vio. ("Intellectually deficient", etc). Did a quick pass to cleanup, but that might not be enough. Checked history, it seems some similar Mumbai-based IP's, presumably the same editor, keep on inserting the material. Cheers, 115.113.48.2 (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good cleanup job. I've watchlisted it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is continuing at this article, and it needs semi-protection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hari Shankar Tiwari
This article looks like a blp nightmare but it more or less checks out. How much prominence should be given to unproven charges?--Misarxist 14:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to scrub it on account of he is obviously being unfairly smeared.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - Trimmed of the attack content. BLP and NPOV and accusatory speculation, so he has a criminal record, in UP Utter Pradesh that is pretty normal, In the last assembly, 205 of the total of 403 legislators had pending criminal charges. -  partisan attack content creation, not even close to a balanced life story, suggest either, writing a decent all round policy compliant BLP or keeping content as non accusatory as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recurrent problem with deleted bios
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.  
 * (del/undel) 03:44, May 4, 2009 EvilBastard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleted Person where a dozen people say deleted Person is insignificant) (view/restore)
 * (del/undel) 04:14, April 30, 2008 AutobiographYNuker (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (G11: Deleted Person is a spammer) (view/restore)
 * (del/undel) 03:19, April 30, 2008 HeartlessPerson (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (A7: Deleted Person is completely unimportant) (view/restore)

Good top hit in Google? Maybe not.

I am experimenting with deleted article as a kludge to work around this but I suspect that is not right; maybe people have a better way round this (or maybe we should talk to the devs or perhaps collapse the deleted stuff in the MediaWiki base templates) Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.  
 * (del/undel) 03:44, May 4, 2009 ThinkAboutthechildren (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleted Person where a dozen people argue about whether we censor articles on nonces, racists and white fascists) (view/restore)
 * (del/undel) 04:14, April 30, 2008 LazySummary (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (content was "Deleted person was a paedophile activist) (view/restore)
 * (del/undel) 03:19, April 30, 2008 RighteousAdmin (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (A7: being a paedophile activist doesn't make you notable) (view/restore)
 * Or?--Scott Mac 22:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well quite. I don't know, maybe we should get onto the devs and raise a Bugzilla to collapse the logs or something? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to add "__noindex__" or "robots.txt" to these pages. I'm not sure what is the best way to do this, since they can't simply be typed into the edit window. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure they actually get indexed? For instance I can't find |this in google
 * Deleted pages already have "robots = noindex,nofollow", so they won't last at all long in Google after deletion. Frankly admins should be taking more care with deletion summaries, and inappropriate ones should be revdeleted, because they're going to be visible one way or another when someone goes to a deleted title. Assuming that won't happen, the start of the notice is provided by MediaWiki:Moveddeleted-notice, and it's got it's own classes (mw-warning-with-logexcerpt, mw-logline-delete), so someone over at MediaWiki talk:Common.js, MediaWiki talk:Common.css, Wikipedia talk:NavFrame, and/or WP:VPT should be able to collapse it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Billie "Buckwheat" Thomas
Over the following years, he worked on several prominent motion pictures, including Steven Spielberg’s Jaws and Michael Anderson’s Logan’s Run.[citation needed]

This statement appears on the bio. I doubt it's true. There is no mention of his name in the film on imdb. I believe someone is doing a hoax. You should remove this as I've seen the information from you blog spread elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.207.160 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll investigate (and may mention a certain SNL sketch about the subject).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Buckwheat died in 1980. Even though it's a BDP, I'll see about fixing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Towey
I just sprotected due to controversial and poorly sourced commentary; this may reappear as to a certain extent it is a matter of interpretation as much as objective fact. I have also advised the subject to register and comment on the talk page. Eyes would be appreciated as the person most active in fixing problems has not edited in a while. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yashpal Raghav
Yashpal Raghav (born on 14 July 1985 in Darbhanga District of Bihar India), is an Entrepreneur. After working as software engineer he quit his job and started his new venture in 2009 as a Stock Market Technical Analyst and portfolio manager in Indian stock market. By qualification he a mechanical engineer from Sir M. Visvesvaraiya Institute of technology has done his early education from Patna Bihar.

Yashpal is a born sportsperson and adventurous by nature. He believes in educated and well researched approach to any works.He is regular contributor to different websites and blog related to stock market like stockezy.com, raghav invest hub etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashpalraghav (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - This is the BLP noticeboard for reports about biographies that already exist. For suggestions regarding article creation you could ask at Requested articles. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

John Renesch
article seems to be an advertisement written by the subject himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgreen (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true. I made some edits to remove some of the most blatant puffery, but I'd appreciate another set of eyes. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuk. You seem to have done a good enough cleanup, Drmies, but I'll have another look at it. I'll maybe see if there are some less-closely-involved sources to cite too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the real work--there are references in the article, but I did not feel inclined to sift through them and see what could be used to footnote which sections in the article. If you can do a little bit of that, or find some other sources, that would be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Payne (journalist)
There is some libelous information on this page that is not sourced or referenced in any way. I do not know if the libelous information is true but a search of the information pertaining to this person produced no reliable results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDolloff (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the only unsourced statement at Charles Payne (journalist). Dayewalker (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Steven Webb
Would some of you please take a look at the new edits like this one to this persons page. They are tagged as BLP violations and I don't think that Digital Spy blogs are reliable sources. On the other hand if I am wrong please restore the info with my apologies. As a side note a brief perusal of this IP's edits shows a reliance on Digital Spy as a source. Again if this is okay than so be it but if it isn't the IP may need some advice about using DS. Thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We could have a debate about the reliability of the Daily Mail, but salacious innuendo shit like "Webb is a close personal friend of Stephen Fry and the couple have been photographed at public events" has no place on wikipedia.--Scott Mac 00:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. This stuff seems to pop up on this page every couple of months. If some of you would add this page to your watchlist your help would be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 01:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

incorrect information:
Brendan O'Connor (born 23 January 1970) is a journalist (not really), television personality and former comedian (not really) and all round embarassment.

it should be:

Brendan O'Connor (born 23 January 1970) is a journalist, television personality and former comedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.67.209 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been vandalism by an anon IP. It has now been edit out (not by me) 01:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to this the same IP's (69.117.103.139) only other edit was at Marc Coleman, another Irish journalist, and was also unsourced and derogatory. I've corrected this one too.
 * There may be a pattern here. Something to keep an eye on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

shi de li
An official statement on a self-proclaimed "shaolin abbot Shi De Li" has been issued from China Shaolin Temple. Details are as following:


 * Recent reports said a self-proclaimed “abbot of Shaolin Temple, 31st generation successor in lineage from Bodhidharma, Shi De Li” would offer profitable lecture and Kungfu trainings at Pawcatuck Martial Arts School on November 27, 2010.


 * According to the temple’s investigation, no record is found about the above-mentioned person that has lived in China Shaolin Temple and its sub temples. China Shaolin Temple hereby makes the following statement:
 * 1. China Shaolin Temple has only the one current abbot named Shi Yongxin;
 * 2. Shaolin Temple has nothing to do with the Shi De Li’s activity at Pawcatuck Martial Arts School;
 * 3. Shi De Li must immediately cease acting against the Buddhist belief and jeopardizing the temple’s legal right in the name of Shaolin Temple;
 * 4. If Shi De Li would continue to do things his own way, China Shaolin Temple shall reserve the right of filing a court appeal.

Welcome everyone to visit the official website of China Shaolin Temple with information about Shaolin activities, cultural studies and  foreign communications. http://www.shaolin.org.cn/en —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshui (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have refactored (changed) your above comment to show more clearly the text you wanted, I think. You have edited these article: Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Kung Fu and Pagoda Forest at Shaolin Temple and Shaolin Monastery. Is there a problem in any of these articles? Which article? What is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see it has aroused controversies over true and fake shaolin monks. The introduction to Shi De Li's bio, it's total fabrication, because the official website of china shaolin temple has released the above clarification statement:"no record founded in shaolin temple or its sub temples and the temple has only the one current abbot named Shi Yongxin." I agree such material requires a high degree of sensitivity.We must get the article right. Thanks for your time and considerations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshui (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a general noticeboard where people probably have no relevant knowledge, so you would need to clearly spell out the problem and how it should be solved. Are you talking about the article Shi De Li? What text in the article is wrong? How should it be fixed? If you want help to edit the article, please say so and someone might be able to help, provided there are reliable sources to verify informaton. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem is that all the material talking about Shi De Li is unsourced and contentious, so it should be removed immediately. A reliable source to verify this was posted in my first message of this noticeboard, or you can find more in an official website at http://www.shaolin.org.cn/templates/EN_T_newS_list/index.aspx?nodeid=295&page=ContentPage&contentid=3489 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshui (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Swami X
This biography of a recently-living-and-no-indication-of-being-dead person is sourced to WikiMapia and YouTube videos, which doesn't seem like the height of reliability. Alas, this appears to be part of a pattern of bad sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My inclination, had I seen this first, would be to delete it as a BLP violation. It contains any number of poorly sourced controversial statements. I'd have marked the deletion summary as "will restore on request if someone willing to make BLP compliant". It's been festering for four years after the AFD with no improvement, so such drastic action prevents that, and forces any keepers to do some work. The only reason I'm not nuking this right now is out of respect to the fact you haven't and I wondering whether you've got a better plan. If not, I suggest mine.--Scott Mac 13:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support Scott's comments, either accept it does not comply with sourcing and likely is never going to comply with policy or get rid of it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a plan. There are multiple fronts, here, unfortunately.  I'm currently looking at some of Special:Contributions/Elcajonfarms, after seeing .  Such things as  of that article and Geier (WikiProject discussion) seem to indicate that some poor standards of sourcing have been employed.  Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've nuked it. If anyone wants to fix it for BLP instead, feel free to undelete it.--Scott Mac 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion being challenged at Deletion review/Log/2010 November 28. Opinions requested.--Scott Mac 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when is BLPN an annex to AFD? If folks want this article deleted then they should have used one the several proper procedures for proposing the deletion of a sourced article.   Will Beback    talk    09:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I understood that you do not object to the restoration of the article. If so, why are you posting this here?   Will Beback    talk   
 * Will, I think that's what's being discussed at DRV. I'm not sure why people took the article to DRV, given that I have no objection to its restoration, but they did. Since people here were involved in the initial discussion, I was merely (and without prejudicing any response) pointing them to the ongoing and consequential discussion. I'm not trying to open up another front, merely pointing people to where things seem to be at now.--Scott Mac 09:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we all agree to undeleting this and improving it according to standard Wikipedia procedures. If there's no real dispute then let's just close this down and move forward.   Will Beback    talk    09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even as I deleted it, I indicated I was willing for people to do just that - all I was wishing to prevent was more years of festering badly-sourced BLP. I've never seen what the fuss is about.--Scott Mac 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Major clean-up required
While referencing some articles with 'citation required' templates, I came across Sister Abhaya murder case. Although BLP obviously does not apply to the subject of the article, there are numerous accusations made against the accused and court members that are definitely BLP violations. The entire article is a nightmare of poor referencing and POV statements, and I'm having a hard time even following the prose to figure out how to fix it. Anyone want to take a crack at cleaning it up? It's such a convoluted mess I don't want to just tag it and leave it. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a mess. The problem I have is trying to gain an overview of the case, which, in part, requires me to follow the legal issues in India (of which I have no knowledge). I thought about taking the overly long lead and separating it into a one-paragraph lead and the rest of it into some sort of overview. But I'm not sure how to summarize it. Then, I could start removing whole chunks of stuff that have no sources at all or are obviously POV (usually both).


 * Is there any question as to whether the article is notable? There's no article on the person herself, but there has been press about the investigation of her death. Clearly, the investigation of every person's suspicious death isn't notable (most suspicious deaths get some press), so what makes this one worth keeping? I'd hate to spend a lot of time on an article that shouldn't even be here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * These are the same issues I was having; I have no problem with rolling up my sleeves and just getting things done on my own, but in this case I don't know where to even begin. As far as notability is concerned having the article about the event as opposed to the victim is recommended, so that part is ok. I think it would likely survive an AfD, but I understand not wanting to put too much effort in if it's just going to be deleted. It would almost be best it if was removed from mainspace to the article incubator (or userfied) for a complete rewrite. Once the enormous amount of unsourced info and POV was removed it could be moved back to mainspace and then be monitored to ensure anything added is policy compliant. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahha, I bet you wish you never set eyes on that. The picture looks like a copyright violation, I have asked the uploader where they got it from. One option is tough love, move all the cites but one to the talkpage, blank almost all of the uncited and then watch it and insist it is recreated in a manner compliant with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Some of it looks like cut and copy copyright violations, as is often the case when large sections are added uncited, but I haven't had a deep investigation. As for notability, perhaps in Kerela but publication to the world is presently being accomplished through wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha - I remember stumbling across a similar article a long time ago and asking you for advice on your talk page and you joked "pretend you didn't see it". This is the same situation. For some reason (stubbornness? ego? stupidity?) I'm not capable of ignoring these tough ones. --Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you need to look inside and visualize a Samurai swordsman and with the concept that sometimes less is more, (especially if it is policy compliant) whip out your razor sharp sword and slash it to the bones. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sage advice Mr. Miyagi. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested a discussion on deletion of the picture file. It defies any logic that the uploader actually took the picture, even though he says he did. She died in 1992. He says he uploaded it in November of 2008. A short time before his upload, the picture appeared in a newspaper article on the web. As of now, it's in many places on the web.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So who is going to slash it? Jezebel (or do you go by Ponyo?)? Rob? Me? Someone else? No one? Rob, please clarify what you mean by moving the cites to the Talk page, etc. Why couldn't I just remove all of the uncited material? That preserves all of the cites, such as they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Rob, who started editing while I was posting my question. More power to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bb23, thanks for your help with this. My comment in regards to moving all but one of the cites to the talkpage was from the point of view that we simply clean the content completely to a stub, move the additional externals to the talkpage to allow the interested parties to use them to recreate the content in a policy compliant manner, this is not required if a couple of users here are prepared to have an in depth look and attempt to improve it ourselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tidied a few cites, this is one way of seeing what you actually have by looking at all the cites and exposing and expanding them...I have also improved it by 20 percent by removing 20 percent of the uncited dubious stuff, it can so easily be replaced with correct cites if a contributor wants to be I try to work such articles by keeping the basic details and removing the tangential fluff. I will look at the deletion discussion for the pic, the user has a copyright warning ion his talkpage from a couple of years ago and a few deleted uploads. I am to busy to look more now, feel free to tweak and improve, there are also some useful looking articles in the external link section. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez
Can I please get some more eyes on this article? We're having BLP violations (often ones with disastrous potential) hit it daily. If not I'll be forced to semi-protect it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I didn't know we were doing pending changes right now... thought they were off-limits. No complaints, btw: a good solution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * &hellip; which would be a shame since . Let's see what pending changes achieves.  Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I watchlisted it's in the same speciallty of mine, so I could find out what's true and what's not. Matt Millen another similar article on a Michigan BLP needs eyes as well. Secret account 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Julian_Assange
There is an ongoing problem with an editor trying to push a sub-heading of "Investigation over alleged sexual crimes in Sweden" into this section (this is substantially toned down from the original). I have argued there is no call for such a heading because it is pointy and that the L2 header adequately deals with the section. The editors concern is apparently that newer legal difficulties r.e. the recent Wikileaks release has it's own sub-heading and so the Swedish investigation should have it's own heading too. My proposal was to modify "2010 legal difficulties and charges" to only deal with the Swedish matter and make the Wikileaks release a new L2 heading. But this was rejected out of hand.

I feel the current header is highly POV and is inserted on tentative reasoning - it makes the TOC look messy and complicated and does not accurately reflect the content in the section. Needs more eyes on. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. There is an ongoing problem with some editors trying to remove or downplay what Assange's friends don't like, after he asked his 200,000 Twitter followers to "fix" the article, and also with some editors lacking understanding for an article's need for logic and consistency as far as the hierarchy of headings is concerned. I'm not aware of any users having insisted on any particular wording of a heading. As the umbreally heading on the 2010 legal troubles now covers two unrelated issues (a Swedish investigation and arrest warrant, and an American investigation of something entirely different), it's logic to have a subheading on each of them, and in fact, the need for a clear subheading on the Swedish investigation was suggested on the talk page by SlimVirgin some days ago and has so far never been contested. In any case, a WikiLeaks document leak cannot be made into a subheading of "charges in Sweden", as tmorton166 did. The tentative wording of the heading in question is, of course, a totally neutrally worded and accurate description of the contents of the section. I do realize that some users have a strong wish to defend Julian Assange, but this is not a productive way to do it. Discussion of the article structure belongs on the article talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've told you about throwing those accusations at me. I'd encourage you to retract them so we can actually have an adult discussion :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 12:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you of anything. This is a general observation regarding this article. It would be very naive to assume it was entirely unproblematic that he sent out such a request. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good to be aware of the twitter request and we need a few extra eyes on the article. I can only imagine the article is high profile and high traffic at present and to keep it in line with all policy and guidelines. NPOV headers are important and the sections about his legal issues shouldn't be excessively the focus of attention. At first read it looks pretty well written to me from an uninvolved position, and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> The current subheading says: "7.1 Swedish investigation and arrest warrant." A reader would not discern from this subheading that it involves anything other than leaking by wikilinks. I would therefore change it to "7.1 Swedish sex investigation and arrest warrant". Notice that it's not necessary at all to use the word "rape" in the subheading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support that, much more uninvolved and NPOV. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would definitely support "Swedish sex investigation and arrest warrant" (which is more or less the same as the original "Investigation over alleged sexual crimes in Sweden"). I changed it to "Swedish investigation and arrest warrant" as (yet another) attempt at a compromise, but I agree that it is less than ideal for the reasons pointed out. I don't really think we need to censor what the entire case is about in the heading because of BLP (if we couldn't have meaningful, descriptive headings, we could drop headings altogether), the section is extremely well sourced and states specifically that he is investigated (and wanted) over charges of "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion". This article has some related problems of material being removed because some users simply don't like it, for instance the lead section doesn't mention with a word the fact that this person has an Interpol arrest warrant and is the subject of several government investigations - a clear violation of Manual of Style (lead section). Jeannedeba (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tanit Phoenix
This article has been the subject of a minor edit war regarding Ms Phoenix's date of birth. The only source for it is the Askmen entry that has it as 1980. I have been contacted on my talk page apparently by the subject of the article claiming that Askmen is wrong and offering to e-mail me a copy of her birth certificate (clearly not a good idea). I have responded on the their talk page as best I can and referred them to WP:BIOSELF. Now reporting here for the sake of good order. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK resolved, I have been provided with the official website link that supports 1984 and amended the article accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

rodney whitaker
I am attempting to update Rodney Whitaker's bio on his page, however, I am having some difficulty in posing his updated bio on Wiki. Could someone be of help in my dilemma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookey Whitaker (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted because they were copy-and-pasted from a copyrighted source. We are strict about complying with copyright laws.  If you want to add material, you'll have to write it in your own words; if you own the copyright of the material you are trying to add, you'd have to file an WP:OTRS ticket to release the copyright. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, because you are apparently the subject of the article, please read the guidance on editing with a conflict of interest. I suggest that you post your proposed changes on the article's talk page so that they can be reviewed by other users. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek
User:Ladsc4840 is attempting to re-insert the purported birth year of this musician. Previous discussions over this are archived in April 2010 - here - see. Article subject has here requested that no birth year be included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no source is provided, this should be straightforward. It's not clear why we would be confident that that editor is indeed the subject, but for now at least this shouldn't matter.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Brendan O'Connor.
Brendan O'Connor (born 23 January 1970) is a journalist (not really), television personality and former comedian (not really) and all round embarassment.

Even though this (the above) is not in the biography it is still in the search results page, from google

im not him just an observer and noticed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.219.87 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it takes Google an hour or two to catch up with Wikipedia. Don't worry, they will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I double-checked. The article hasn't been edited since November 6.  So, it's really weird that the November 27 google cache doesn't reflect the current article.  But basically that's google's problem, not ours.  Very weird though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Willow Palin


Requesting some BLP expertise on inclusion of information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, from this story in the articles mentioned above. Willow Palin is itself a protected redirect to Sarah Palin and has been since 2008; the consensus in the past has been that Willow is not herself a public figure, though her sister Bristol Palin is. My opinion is that while information about Bristol's part in the story is fair game for her article, the information on Willow Palin should be left out. Kelly hi! 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Willow Palin is a minor and is not a public figure. I think that if we take ourselves seriously as an encyclopedia, and if we take WP:BLP seriously, then we shouldn't be in the business of writing up Facebook posts from 16-year-old non-public figures. MastCell Talk 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the media continues to report on a minor, and if that minor goes out of her way to get media attention, then she will eventually become a public figure. This particular minor is a featured performer in a reality TV show. When folks put themselves in front of cameras for pay they become public figures.   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this person is a minor, presumably the decision to appear in the television show would be her parents' not hers. Kelly  hi! 00:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it matters that any contract must be between the parents and the show. Clearly, some child actors are public figures. However, in response to Will, I also don't see how Willow being a "performer" on her mother's reality show makes Willow notable. It's still derivative of her mother. The media may write about it but probably only because of the relationship. At some point, Willow has to do something of her own to be notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not notable enough for an article of her own. But notable enough that we should be wary of suppressing information about her that's been widely reported. For example, I'm not sure why these edits were necessary from a BLP perspective. Does BLP demand that we redact information about minors who are in TV shows? I don't believe so.   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Seems to smack more of sanitization than relevance or notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (Not that I'd add any of that back - the material had other problems. But I don't see the BLP aspect.)   Will Beback    talk    01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it back in, because it relates to Bristol, since Bristol issued an apology on behalf of herself and her sister. The way I read the consensus here, there are no BLP concerns with this material. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus at this point - the discussion has only been open for a few hours. I don't want to edit-war, but I'm removing the material per WP:BLP for now. Kelly  hi! 04:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd better not do that because the article is part of the Sarah Palin article probation. But I would ask an uninvolved editor to consider removing the material while the discussion is ongoing. Kelly  hi! 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution here too, and give the kid a break. Even if she is 'notable' (a dubious proposition), the fact that she wrote something she shouldn't isn't. Teenagers being teenagers is never notable, though it may sometimes be annoying. If BLP doesn't apply, common sense should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to me, that given that her statement to E! Online, she has become a public figure and the incident has acheived WP:NOTEworthiness. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think a short statement made to quash tabloid allegations are suffient to make one a public figure. Kelly  hi! 04:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that user 184.59.23.225 has a very strange idea of what constitutes noteworthiness. What is notable about a teenager saying things about facebook, or about the people she went to school with? Were it not for her mother's notability, none of this would merit a glance, and the story will probably be forgotten in a few days in any case. This is supposed to be an online encyclopaedia, not a supermarket tabloid. I have to wonder about the motivations of those who wish to include this sort of junk pseudo-journalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources also report that Willow has a boyfriend named Andy Almon who has also made some spicy remarks. I agree with AndyTheGrump (who presumably is not Andy Almon) about this.  Like Pink Floyd said, leave them kids alone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is something that's missing from this conversation: Nobody is proposing to write an article about Willow Palin. The question at hand is: Given that Bristol Palin issued an apology on behalf of herself and on behalf of her sister, does it not make sense to say in the Bristol Palin article what she apologized on behalf of her sister for? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just commented at the article talk page. I do not see any encyclopedic value in recording details of a rant and subsequent apology. Bristol ranted (just like any other young and often not-so-young person under pressure), then had to make an apology because of more pressure. Recording that she said shit is pathetic (i.e. no encyclopedic value), and the name of her sister is not required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Unworthy of going into any article, 'pathetic' just about sums it up. A non-event. And for the record - no I'm not Andy Almon, I doubt very much that Willow Palin's mother would approve of me, either on the grounds of age difference, or on the basis of my politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the preceding two comments - none of this is encylopedic no matter how it is phrased. However, as compromise with those who really really want the topic covered, I have re-written the paragraph. The re-write removes the unsourced negative and contentious material, which includes the all the quotes, believe it or not, and tries to make the passage conform with the source (an AP article) that has been in the article for a while. I would ask anyone who wants to comment further to look at the diff of the edits I made here that was reverted before this tiff began, and the current language which is simply this: "During the airing of the first episode, Bristol posted defensive comments on Facebook against posters who criticized the Palin family. Some of Bristol's comments included salty and "offensive" language for which she later apologized".-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "unsourced comments" are now sourced, but that's besides the point, as I'm not insisting on including the actual quotes. I'm objecting that there is an effort to hide the fact that Bristol apologized for both herself and her sister. I am further objecting that there is opposition to using her sister's name. Since she has two sisters, it's important to name which sister she is apologizing for. For now, I only included the fact that the apology was for both herself and for her sister, and I'm waiting to see how the consensus here forms regarding naming the sister (which both references in the article do). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone thinks it's important, they can go look at the article linked in the footnote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even seeing why it's necessary to state in the article that she included her sister in her apology. Kelly  hi! 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "it's important to name which sister she is apologizing for". No it isn't. The whole story is total trivia, and as far as I can tell of no importance whatsoever to anyone who isn't either (a) using it to push a political agenda, or (b) attempting to convert Wikipedia into a repository of random tabloid junk. There are serious debates going on at the moment regarding Wikipedia content (including one on an image of a young girl killed by a plastic bullet). How about looking at this with a sense of proportion, or preferably dropping the whole issue as unworthy of consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The appropriate policy here is WP:NPF, I believe - Willow Palin is not a public figure. And I still don't understand the insistence on putting negative information about her into an article about her sister, Bristol Palin. The "news" is questionable for insertion even as it relates to Bristol Palin. Kelly  hi! 05:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPF doesn't apply-- anyone who can issue public statements to E! which are "excitedly repeated" is necessarily a public figure. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump and Kelly are correct. Of course news outlets will excitedly repeat gossip, particularly when it involves the children of a prominent politician. However, an encyclopedic article does not need to record the details of a trivial incident (a 20 year old wrote a comment including "shit" and later issued an apology). Details are not warranted unless a secondary reliable source has written an analysis showing that the details are significant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did we just enter La La Land here? Here are TWO secondary sources: Source 1, Source 2. They are in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus
I just reverted User:Anythingyouwant's declaration of resolution for this issue, as I don't see that consensus has been reached. AFAICT, the argument is being put forth that it requires a consensus to include accurate, well-sourced content in a BLP, and there is no such consensus for this inclusion. However, I can't find any WP policy that backs that argument. The incident in question unarguably did occur, the material is sourced to (at least) two WP:SECONDARY sources, the WP:NOTABILITY of the content is established by those sources, and WP:NPF isn't at issue as the subject issued a press release regarding the incident. Please, someone, put forth a defensible argument for the exclusion of this material that doesn't violate WP:NOTCENSORED. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the opening paragraph of WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Kelly  hi! 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Burden of evidence" is met by the sources provided-- it did (unquestionably) happen. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if there is no consensus that you've met your burden of evidence, you should still be able to jam material into a BLP as long as you think that you've met the burden of evidence? That's an interesting theory, but it would give you unlimited ability to insert almost anything you want into a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, look up the word "evidence." Here, I'll help you out: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." The burden of evidence is met by the sources provided. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus that the burden of evidence is met by the sources provided. Also, per WP: Handling trivia, "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." There is no consensus that the item is sufficiently important for inclusion.  Mere mention in a newspaper is insufficient evidence, per WP:NOTNEWS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * how about WP:BORINGTRIVIANOTWORTHWASTEINGEVERYONESTIMEWITH? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have been tipped off by the red link that there's no such policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was such a policy, but, despite agreement that it was a truly wonderful policy, after a long and contenious debate about the difficulties of enforcing it, it was deleted. See deletelognoonereads.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the deletion log to indicate that there used to be such a policy. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? WP:SARCASM. And the fact that something happened, and can be proven to have happened, doesn't make it notable. There is policy on this too, but I can't be bothered to find it just for a debate over pointless trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh?????? WP:SARCASM says not to use sarcasm. So why are you using it? Victor Victoria (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IRONY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't support your point. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bothered to debate this, then stop. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything to debate. You've got to prove this is notable. You can't. It is self-evidently trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." That's from WP:NOTABILITY.
 * Anyway, how many citations would you like? Would 9 do?
 * Bristol Palin apologizes for Facebook rant (Salon): "Bristol Palin is apologizing for herself and her younger sister for their Facebook rant against posters criticizing their family. Palin posted the apology on her Facebook page, saying she and her 16-year-old sister Willow "shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize.""
 * Willow Palin response to criticism with anti-gay Facebook rant (Today Show): "However, Bristol Palin (who chimed in to the argument between Tre and Willow) posted an apology Tuesday night on her Facebook account. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
 * Willow Palin slams Facebook attachers, defends Bristol going into 'Dancing with the Stars' finale (NY Daily News): "Willow herself drew fire last week when she was caught using homophobic rants on her Facebook page…. Bristol later apologized for her sister's comments, adding that she was sorry for joining in the fray herself and posting her own nasty remarks towards critics of her mother's show."
 * Willow Palin's homophobic, hateful Facebook rant (Boston Globe): "…older sister Bristol has apologized for the flare up, but even she hasn't mentioned the f-word: “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize,” she wrote on her Facebook page."
 * Willow Palin Tosses Homophobic Slurs Around on Facebook (AOL News):"Late Tuesday night, Bristol apologized on her official Facebook page. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!""
 * Bristol Palin Apologizes for Willow Palin Facebook Rant (National Ledger): "Bristol Palin has apologized for a Facebook rant from her sister Willow Palin.  She said, "We shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
 * Willow Palin Lashes Out at Facebook "Attackers," Prefers Cheering On Bristol (E! Online): "Willow Palin has a bone to pick with the "lamestream media."'A week after big sister Bristol Palin apologized for Willow's use of a gay slur in a posting on Facebook, the 16-year-old is sounding off on her own."
 * Bristol Palin Apologizes For Willow Palin's Offensive Facebook Slurs: "Bristol Palin has returned to her Facebook page, not for more inappropriate prattle with her sister Willow Palin, but to apologize for the offensive comments she and Willow made during a war on the social networking site this week"
 * Bristol Palin Apologizes for Antigay Slurs (The Advocate): "Bristol Palin took to Facebook to apologize, or not, for antigay slurs she and her sister wielded in response to a young man who criticized their mother Sarah Palin’s television show on the social networking site."
 * 184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the above quotes be redacted from here and from Talk:Bristol Palin, where they've been crossposted? WP:NPF applies to all pages. Kelly  hi! 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you remove sourced material, it will be considered vandalism. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you remove sourced material because it is trivial garbage, it will be considered good practice. And even a mistaken deletion due to a content dispute is never vandalism - look at policy. On the other hand, calling someone a 'vandal' without justification will be a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:POT. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPF says, in part: I'm not sure how this applies here. Willow Palin is better known than many people for whom we have entries. Her notability, such as it is, stems from being a member of the Palin family. Can someone explain to me how this person fails to be at least a limited purpose public figure?  Will Beback   talk    01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. 
 * Without criticizing those who have used an NPF rationale here, I just want to point out that several other policies and guidelines have been mentioned. For example, the uninvolved admin at ANI did not rely on NPF, and instead quoted policy about people who are notable for only one event (Willow's notability is based only on the event that she was born to her mother).  Personally, I relied on other policies and guidelines besides that one and NPF.  Incidentally, what does the word "entry" mean in the NPF policy?  Does it mean an article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe "entry" means "article". I'm not necessarily endorsing the inclusion of any particular material, but I don't think that WP:NPF is applicable here.    Will Beback    talk    09:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPF is absolutely not applicable. The decision to exclude Willow was made w/o reliance on a single WP policy. It was done "on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus" (emphasis added, see Talk:Bristol Palin). Had the uninvolved admin relied on WP policies to determine WP:Notability he/she would have used WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY to make the call, rather than "community consensus". Victor Victoria (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion opened at WP:ANI
At WP:ANI. Kelly hi! 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Manohla Dargis
msnbc.com has a story about journalists making political contributions. One of the journalists it reported on was Manohla Dargis. I inserted this information into her article, but user HankNancy keeps removing it, refusing to discuss it in the discussion I started on the article's Talk page. After an admin recommended to HankNancy that s/he discuss the issue, another user account, BobCat2010, followed in the same pattern of removing the material without discussion. Both the HankNancy and the BobCat2010 accounts have been used solely to edit the Dargis article. Drrll (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am struggling to find where it is actually reported the detail? It seems to be investigative journalism, it is actually noteworthy? Has it been reported in any other wiki reliable citations? Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The story is investigative journalism by Bill Dedman. It is noteworthy since it is about journalists who actually contribute to political candidates and as it is published by a major news organization. As far as I know, it has only been reported by msnbc.com (but it was picked up by LA Observed, which I don't know whether is a reliable source). Drrll (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthiness is not because they are a political journo and have contributed a few dollars to a particular party (allegedly so many have contributed that it seems normal) but if the investigative journalism story has been repeated. I am still not seeing the exact detail, where is it? Can you link to the LA observed link thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the msnbc.com story, you have to click 'Show more text' to see the Dargis information. The link to the LA Observed article is here. Drrll (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be adding this part ..."I made the Dean, Nader and first Kerry donations when the Los Angeles Times had no policy/guidelines prohibiting political donations by the likes of me," Dargis said in an e-mail. "The second Kerry donation was made when I was a free agent, employed neither by the Los Angeles Times nor by the New York Times." .... you are just adding the allegation without the rebuttal? She also was a film critic and not a political reporter with any employment axe to grind...? Personally I don't see any noteworthiness, its investigative journalism with no legs. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point about including her rebuttal. Despite being a film critic, she still is a journalist and, as mentioned in the msnbc.com story, she does review politically-oriented films. Drrll (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the wiki would be better served by attempting to find reliable sources for her date of birth and place of birth and the basic details of her life story that would clearly assert she is actually wikipedia noteworthy and create an actual biography of any value Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Drrll has added information about journalist's donation to Democratic Party causes to 14 articles using the same source. It seems like cherry-picking material to embarrass journalists.   Will Beback    talk    20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if he intended to add the same content to the other 142 wiki BLP articles... well, I suppose each one deserves discussion on its own merit but the fact that the story hasn't been taken up by other reliable sources is very telling and I have to wonder, if he wasn't adding the rebuttal at this BLP has he added it at the others. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, when I added information about a journalist making political donations using a primary source, you said the problem was that I was using a primary source rather than a secondary source. I agreed with you and removed the information.  This is a solid secondary source from a major news organization by a Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist.  It is not cherry-picking when the entire story is about journalists contributing to political candidates.  Just because the information is not flattering does not mean that the material does not deserve inclusion in articles.  Just about any BLP includes information that the subject would rather not have in his article. Drrll (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats correct but we have to also ask is it notable and why.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if I read this right, the notability objection is that an article about widespread apparently-unethical behavior by journalists is not being widely repeated by other journalists? Surely no one is under the misapprehension that the editors and producers who choose which stories run in newspapers and on news programs are not, and do not consider themselves to be, journalists?  Isn't that a bit like refusing to believe that politicians abuse campaign fundraising because none of them have passed laws against campaign fundraising?  The guideline of widespread press coverage is of dubious value where the topic is critical of the press, because of the inherent conflict of interest. The article appeared in a major media outlet, written by a respected investigative journalist,  and should be judged on its own merits; it's not as if this is a research-free community tabloid piece. There may be other reasons to question the inclusion of the material, but not down the reliable-sources road. I submit that the idea that journalists, whom we depend upon to report news with as little bias as possible, may be engaging in behavior that calls that neutrality into question is inherently notable, and shouldn't be wikilawyered out of the article on a technicality.  How about arguing the issue on the merits instead? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wesley Donehue
User Mistevens1155, creator of the page, appears to be an employee of "Donehue Direct," the business owned by the subject of the article.


 * Business bio page: http://www.donehuedirect.com/about-2/michael-stevens/
 * Twitter post by subject implying relationship with user Mistevens1155: http://twitter.com/wesleydonehue/status/9755587659177984  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmettoandcrescent (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been WP:PROD. Republican political consultant...I trimmed it of the majority of the fluff .. thoughts anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Prod has been removed, could use a little work but as far as BLP report goes, I think its resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DESMOND ELLIOTT
THIS IS A NAME USED FOR SPAM ACCOUNTS. SOMEONE HAS CREATED A WIKI PAGE IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THIS APPEAR TO BE A "REAL" PERSON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldroulich (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding the kinds of comments you've added to the article will get you blocked if you continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Google has a lot of pictures of him, here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein
Hopefully this is the right place. I'm concerned by a pattern of quote distortions and potentially libelous material added by editor Wikifan12345 at this article. After a rather long RFC, the talk page controversy now centers around whether or not Wiki's addition of "Finkelstein has characterized Hizbollah as "a group of patriotic and dedicated soldiers” defending their lands from “American and Israeli ‘terrorists in uniform.” is ok. The problem? Finkelstein never said it. It's from an email posted on his website by another person. I assumed it was a mistake, it's easy to read over these things too quickly, but Wikifan continues to push for its addition. Another editor pointed out a very selective quote added by Wikifan and my curiosity was piqued. Looking back, I found a few interesting edits from Wikifan: that Finkelstein "said Hezbollah had a "right" to kidnap Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev" (the source does not mention a right, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers), that DePaul University's tenure board "ruled Finkelstein violated the "professional ethical norms" ("supporting" source here) and that Finkelstein expressed solidarity with a Palestinian who went on a bulldozer rampage through Jerusalem (the source discusses a poor taste post on Finkelstein's website).


 * Finkelstein is a controversial character but he has neither condoned kidnapping of specific soldiers, called Hizbollah "a group of patriotic and dedicated soldiers”, expressed solidarity with a specific terrorist or been censored for professional ethics violations by DuPaul. This history of repeated distortion aimed at painting Finkelstein in the worst possible light doesn't speak well of the editor's neutrality and appears, to my inexperienced eye, as a series of libelous BLP violations. Is this a correct characterization or am I off-base here? Sol (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above edits are being taken out of context. The issue of libel and BLP violations were originally brought up by myself. User:WLRoss had originally made a libelous analogy on his own and falsely attributed it to Finkelstein.


 * Had Sol made this BLP topic when the edits were added weeks ago I'd be more inclined to AGF, but he posted this as the talk discussion was nearing closure. I was trying to add the edit all users in the talk agreed to, including Ross and Sole. This is it:

"Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the 'fundamental principle' is that 'people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers.'"


 * But Wayne of course removed it only because I edited into the article. I called him on this numerous times - 1 and 2. No response. Instead we have this.


 * After reading the source, it seems I made an error and unintentionally attributed an email sent to Finkelstein as Finkelstein's own response. But the real issue here is taking the content dispute to enforcement boards to avoid real discussion.


 * If you want to nail me for BLP issues all right, but Wayne's edit should be hit as well (recognized as OR an administrator'') and hopefully the originally revision we all agreed to well be added to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "But the real issue here is taking the content dispute to enforcement boards to avoid real discussion." The chutzpah is overwhelming. I had to take you here to force you to discuss that Finkelstein didn't say your proposed quote. I'm tired of reading non-sequiter arguments and WP:HEAR. If this were an isolated incident it wouldn't be a big deal. It's not. And then you try to justify your history of libelous, unsourced material by claiming Wayne does the same thing and it's out of context? What context justifies gross violations of BLP? This has nothing to do with the RFC and everything to do with a sustained and disruptive distortion of material in a BLP and general tendentiousness. Sol (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been shown on the article talk page, WLRoss has invented nothing, and has accurately quoted an analogy made by Finkelstein. But Wikifan persists in falsely claiming that WLRoss made this up, and now absurdly describes the citation as "libellous". It is also worth noting that, on the talk page, Wikifan stated that the false (and in this case actually libellous) assertion that Finkelstein supports Hamas is so self-evidently true that it does not need a citation. For too long now, this editor has been acting in a vexatious manner, arguing against a consensus of at least six other editors, and single-handedly filibustering in an attempt to turn this article into an attack page. If he is allowed to continue, no progress will be made in the article, as other editors will be sidetracked into apparently endless disputes. RolandR (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - If these additions from Wikifan have been false that is an extremely serious violation of BLP and every other wiki policy. If it is correct he should stop editing the article and contributing to the talk page. This topic area is the subject of arbitration and restrictions, possibly he should be reported there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue indeed falls under arbcom restrictions, and I'd be surprised if Wikifan12345 hasn't received notification under the I/P case long ago. The Finkelstein talk page should carry the notification as well.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, so I guess I take it to AE? So let it be written . . . Sol (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure it's a simple question of asking a knowledgeable admin to step in. Also: perhaps this isn't the right place to ask this, but I'm pondering the possibility of whether  is a new incarnation of .  The timing of the end of Dajudem and the beginning of Wikifan12345 is suggestive, as is the overall approach to editing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for Wikifan12345 to receive notification of the case -- that was done the day after he/she started editing: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikifan12345's pattern of POV paraphrasing is not limited to the Norman Finkelstein article. The same is occurring on the Hamas page and the most recent problematic edit can be seen in this talk discussion. After three weeks of unsuccessful discussion to get his edit to actually say what the source states it was found that Wikifan's source was misquoting the original news report anyway (ie it had changed "Palestinians" to "Hamas militants" etc etc) but he still insists his source is more accurate and continues to revert to his version. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Between 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia transferred $55.7 million to the families of eight suicide bombers through a committee run by the Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz. despite the source saying The family of each listed terrorist received $5,340, according to the Saudi Committee documents...including [to] eight that lost their lives while perpetrating homicide bombings." Yeah, this needs to stop. I guess I file this at AE, if you have any more creative rephrasings to add, lemme know. Sol (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sole, what inspired you to create this biased incident report? I've already spent ample time defending my edits in the discussion and exposing Wayne's serious lack of understanding of basic BLP laws. The disputes that occurred weeks ago never spilled over into serious BLP arbitration issues. IMO, editors here are trying to avoid the fact that Wayne's uncontrollable habit of removing all my edits (not just here, but other articles he has followed me to) was demonstrated clearly after he removed the edit we all agreed to.


 * If you look above Sole, I asked you and Wayne explicitly if you still endorse Delia's revised edit to replace the current introduction. I asked you in talk. No response. Instead we get this.


 * It begs the question why Sole and Wayne remain active in the article. It is about preserving the integrity of the article or removing editors they personally disagree with? If we truly care about content naturally they would honor the RFC that led a strong consensus about revising the introduction with Delia's edit. Why they continue to dodge the issue in talk and here is suspect.


 * While my edits are routinely removed, Wayne's tend to remain largely untouched even when they are blatantly fabricated. Wayne invented an analogy between Palestinian/Lebanese fighters to the Soviet resistance during WWII. Finkelstein never, ever made this analogy. He never even mentioned Palestinian and Lebanese fighters in comparison to Soviet resistance forces. An administrator recognized the edit as original research (a far worse crime than unintentionally misquoting a sentence or two or replacing Palestinian militant with Hamas militant). If BLP laws are universal, and Sole truly values the integrity of the article, naturally we should all agree the on-going dispute is a shared responsibility.


 * It's difficult to collaborate with Wayne when he removes entire edits under rationales like "POV" or "anti-Hamas" reasoning. This was most notable at Hamas where a lot of his edits were reverted by several users.


 * Accusations of sock-puppetry are serious and libelous without evidence. It poisons the discussion. There must be rules that punish editors for making false accusations right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We are now so thoroughly disconnected from a common frame of reference that I'm having trouble thinking of what to say. No one is accusing you of sock puppetry, nor have I objected to anything but un-sourced material in that article recently. I created this because you seem to have a very serious problem with misusing sources, a problem that has taken up countless man-hours on talk pages as you push for your take on things despite reasonable opposition. You refused to engage in the argument against your sources, not the first time that's happened, and have so far offered no explanation why you feel it's ok to misrepresent where source material comes from, what it says, or who said it. No amount of subject changing or obfuscation is going to change that. And why am I now Sole? Who told you I'm a fish?! Sol (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this being raised to WP:Arbitration Enforcement ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, there we go. I'm just crazy slow with formatting things properly. Sol (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sole, do you even read my edits Sole? Let's forget me for a second. Do you or do you not support Delia's edit? Yes or no? This is crucial because Wayne removed the addition even though he agreed to it. You supported his decision. But wait, both of you supported Delia's edit. So why did you remove it? Was it because I am the one who added it to the article? And because Wayne is more concerned about removing my contributions rather than actually focusing on the content itself, he mistakenly removed the version he agreed to in the RFC. But to cover this up you start an unwarranted and selective BLP noticeboard. Why wait until now? We are talking about edits made weeks ago that ran into pages of discussion. It is not uncommon in I/P disputes to see editors take content disputes into noticeboards when they cannot participate in good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I try. But your post shows us the problem: I didn't remove anything. At all. Period. I just didn't do it. I support Delia's edit (at least the one I said I supported on the talk page) and I oppose you adding a quote from someone who is not Finkelstein. I find the brunt of your accusations bizarre, the rest unfounded; this isn't about me or Wanye or Delia so forgive me if I forgo refuting spurious claims. Sol (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikifan above again repeats the untrue claim that Wayne "invented an analogy". He did nothing of the sort; he quite correctly pointed out that Finkelstein had made such an analogy. In an interview in March 2010, in reply to the direct question "Is it possible to oppose the actions of Israel without supporting Hamas", Finkelstein stated It has nothing to do with what Hamas’s ideology is.  Take World War II.  Stalin was repressive.  I don’t think rational people will dispute that fact.  You could even say Stalin was tyrannical, but who would dispute the righteousness of the Red Army’s resistance to the Nazi invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union? It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the regime.  It is the fact that in the case of Hamas — and here distinctions need to be made — Hamas was the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. In January 2006 there were elections.  Jimmy Carter, who was one of the international monitors, called the elections completely honest and fair.  So it was a democratically elected government.  Israel, along with the United States, immediately tried to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinian people in order to get them to reject and repudiate Hamas, and then eventually launched an attack. In my opinion Hamas had very few options because Israel broke the cease fire that had been implemented on June 19, 2006.  Israel broke the cease fire, as Amnesty International put it, on November 4 when it invaded Gaza and killed six Palestinians militants. Up until the end of December of 2008, Hamas was saying that it wanted to renew the cease fire but only on condition that Israel implement the original terms of the cease fire.  Those terms were that Hamas would stop its rocket and mortar attacks and Israel was supposed to lift its illegal blockade of Gaza, a blockade that Amnesty International called a flagrant violation of international law.  A blockade which Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said was “destroying Gaza’s civilization.”  Israel refused to lift the blockade and demanded a unilateral and unconditional Hamas cessation of rocket and mortar fire on Israel. If you think the rocket and mortar fire by Hamas was wrong, or even a war crime, or even a crime against humanity, what else was Hamas to do?  The blockade was, and is, a flagrant violation of international law.  It was destroying Gaza’s civilization and the international community was doing nothing.  Are you saying Hamas, or I should say here the Palestinian people in Gaza, had a moral/legal obligation to lie still and die?"
 * I have quoted this at length in order to show clearly the context. It is abundantly clear that Finkelstein is here making the analogy denied by Wikifan -- that Hamas has the right to resist the Israeli army, just as the Soviet Union had the right to resist the Nazi German army. He is not comparing Hamas to the Soviets, or Israel to the Nazis, but he is comparing the situations in order to explain the legitimacy of Hamas's resistance. No-one is insisting that Wikifan like or agree with this analogy; but s/he cannot deny that Finkelstein made it. To repeatedly claim, several weeks after this has been pointed out on the article talk page, that Wayne invented the analogy is disruptive, is a denial of good faith, it is near-obsessive "I didn't hear that" behaviour, and it is a breach of countless other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * This discussion has clearly gone beyond the bounds of a BLP dispute, and I too think that it needs to go to an admins noticeboard or to arbitration enforcement. RolandR (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Way to hijack the discussion Roland. Thankfully I took the liberty of comparing Wayne's invented analogy to what Finkelstein actually said in the source he linked to in the original discussion:

"My parents went through World War II. Now, Stalin’s regime was not exactly a bed of roses. It was a ruthless and brutal regime, and many people perished. But who didn’t support the Soviet Union when they defeated the Nazis? Who didn’t support the Red Army? In all the countries of Europe which were occupied – who gets all the honors? The resistance. The Communist resistance – it was brutal, it was ruthless. The Communists were not… It wasn’t a bed of roses, but you respect them. You respect them because they resisted the foreign occupiers of their country. If I am going to honor the Communists during World War II, even through I probably would not have done very well under their regimes… If I’m going to honor them, I am going to honor the Hizbullah. They show courage, and they show discipline. I respect that."

Here is what Wayne wrote:

"Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas, comparing his support for the rights of the Lebanese and Palestinian people to that of World War II support of the Soviet Union against the Nazis whilst not supporting the Stalinist regime itself. He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts."

Finkelstein said nothing about Palestinian or Lebanese people in parallel with those who fought Nazi Germany alongside the Soviet Union though not actually "supporting the Stalinist regime itself."


 * Long discussion includes same edits and explanations. Notice how Wayne's edit is no longer in the article? Tell me Roland, why is that? This is precisely why noticeboards like these are not helpful and are abused by editors looking to remove other users in content disputes. Spreading misinformation and distorting legitimate content disputes into a behavioral problem while ignoring the actions other users is simply unacceptable and not cool. The integrity of this incident report is tainted and it should be regulated to a more neutral, fair environment. I direct Sole and Wayne to my post above Roland's, I really do want to know why he removed Delia's revised introduction when he first agreed to it - that is the principal on-going dispute here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you cant say I dont reply to your claims. Finkelstein used the exact same analogy for both Hamas and Hezbollah in separate replies to questions. I see no problem with merging them both for brevity. That edit was to replace your edit Finkelstein has expressed support for the militant Islamist movements Hezbollah and Hamas which no one accepted. Following your complaints and a long discussion, Delia replaced my edit with Finkelstein has expressed support for the legal right of the Islamist movements Hezbollah and Hamas to act in self defense where Israel violates International Law., an edit accepted by consensus to avoid an edit war, not because my edit was wrong.Wayne (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't do that one. This is the one that I changed. As a general comment, I will confirm that I have seen a problem with Wikifan's handling of quotes, which tend to distort Finkelstein's comments in order to present him in the most negative fashion possible. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - It appears there is now a AE report here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One has to wonder if there is grounds for an AE. I guess it would be fair to move this to the AE unless we're dealing with two incident reports? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's one incident but I was advised to take it to AE, I'm not very savvy on these things so I have no idea which is better/worse etc. An admin said it was under the AE jurisdiction so it's now over there if anyone wants an admin to see anything. Sol (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - At the AE report here -   is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA, for eight months. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Peta Toppano
Could someone please have a look at please, it is in a poor state but the subject would really like the maintenance tags gone. It's full of laundry lists of shows in which she had bit parts, it needs tweaking into some kind of prose narrative that looks less like her agent's PR pack. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I worked on it a little bit, and will let others take a crack at it now. How about you, Guy?  Anyway, I think it's good enough to remove the tags.  Not ready for a Pulitzer though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer
This article contains untrue and defamatory misinformation about the parents of Charles Spencer: John Spencer and Frances Roche. It has been removed at least four times by an editor in the U.S., but someone reinserts it on a daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.131.116 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reverting the deletion because nobody was attempting to explain the deletion, it is difficult to distinguish this sort of thing from vandalism. If someone states that they regard this information to be "untrue and defamatory" that does get us a bit further, I susgest that further discussion be carried out on the article's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The talkpage is available but as we have a thread reported here, this is as good a central discussion location as any. I have removed the disputed content anyways as it was uncited and disputed and contentious, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Content was added recently uncited by this IP 59 ... dynamic - I have had to revert other contentious BLP violations from the address at another BLP Same person is the IP59 .. in these BLP violating additions to this article, Harsimrat_Kaur_Badal - which I think were also reported here, yes just here above .. I have left him(IP59..) a message at his most recent IP59 .. appearance. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ong Teck Chin
Hello, Please could an administrator remove the evidence of this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ong_Teck_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=400102267

in which an anonymous editor introduced allegations about a living person by means of wikilinking from the phrase "inappropriate behaviour" to a particular article. "Inappropriate behaviour" is all that the cited sources say, so clearly that is all we can say in WP.

I removed it in this later edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ong_Teck_Chin&diff=next&oldid=400104947

but of course the edits remain in the history.

Thank you -- Alarics (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - I think this is the correct location for such a request. Requests for oversight - Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of pornographic movie studios
Ok, these aren't people, but everyone associated with them is living, I hope. Loads of redlinks, for a start - is that a BLP violation? I'd say it is. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the redlinks could be moved to the talkpage, so that until there is an article that asserts they are primarily a pornographic movie studio they are not just induced without verification. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mario Kleff


The only sources I have been able to find so far are from Thai real estate magazines local to the city the subject now lives/works in. Would appreciate input from other editors to see if additional sources can be found. Also, I have been unable to find any independent corroboration that the subject worked at BBDO or Hakuhodo (& in what capacity). Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara-Rose Collins
This article is certainly not neutral - it describes her behavior as "bizarre" and repeats relatively trivial anecdotes about Collins. I don't know why the fact that she wore a tiara to a city council meeting is discussed at greater length than either her accomplishments or ethical lapses, while in congress. Also, the discussion of her ethical lapses needs to be attributed. And "negro" is not considered an appropriate word in the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.84.118 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been cleaned up; the vandal (who used a much nastier word than "negro" on the talk page) has been permanently blocked after years of racial and sexual vandalisms. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mad Lion
The Name and other Biograpic information is incorrect and unable to change. Mad Lions Name is NOT Oswald Priest it is Dallion Preece.

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlissa910 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - You are going to need some kind of WP:RS to support that, this google book result confirms the name currently in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates
There is an ongoing dispute at List of Jewish Nobel laureates that would benefit from some outside help. At the center of the dispute is the repeated insertion of recent laureate Andre Geim into the list. Geim, who was born of German parents in Russia, has a Dutch passport, and lives in the UK is not ethnically or culturally or religiously Jewish. To quote Geim, "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish." But of all the hundreds of articles that have been written about Geim that describe him as Russian and German, the cherry-pickers have managed to find 3 sources that call him "Jewish"--and as for all the rest of the WP:RS that talk about his ethnicity, they do not specifically say Geim is NOT Jewish.

The same people who want to stretch the list by describing Geim as "Jewish" are adamantly opposed to having the article say that the criterion for inclusion is that some WP:RS called the person Jewish. It seems to me that the word "Jewish" could have many definitions, and any article using such a wide-ranging term should make it clear to readers which definition is being used. betsythedevine (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's List of atheists does include a sensible explanation of their rule of inclusion: "This is a list of people who have been identified by reliable sources as atheists, or who have expressed that they do not believe in deities; the living people on this list have publicly self-identified as atheists or have expressed that they do not believe in deities, according to reliable published sources (and those reliable published sources do not say that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to their notable activities or public life)." I think that some similar rule for the list of Jewish laureates would work well -- for dead people, that WP:RS called them Jewish but for living people that they self-identified as Jewish. I might add that having such a clear, public expression of the inclusion rule would save a lot of arguments over whether any person did or did not belong on the relevant list.betsythedevine (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd advise people to read what WP:BLPCAT has to say on the subject, and to note that there is an ongoing discussion (above) about whether the List of atheists is in fact in breach of Wikipedia policies. In particular, look at Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, where it is stated that "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. This states that inclusion requires both (a) self-identification, and (b) relevance (with RS) to notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the difficulty is that there is no consensus at the list's talk page that WP:BLPCAT applies to the list. This is because the word "Jewish" has many meanings, and need not refer to religious belief. --Avenue (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word Jewish has many meanings, but if you subtract both ethnicity and religion from the definition of Jewish then not much is left. One could just as well argue that the restrictions of WP:BLPCAT should apply even more carefully to describing people as "Jewish," since the clear intent of including both ethnicity and religion as covered categories is to cover such cases. If "Jewish" is excluded from those rules, by all means re-write BLPCAT to explain that no restrictions at all are placed on describing people as "Jewish" other that some reliable source called them so.betsythedevine (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that intent is not clear enough to many editors. One of the reasons people gave for keeping the list during its an AfD earlier this year was that Jewishness has a significant ethnic aspect, and does not only reflect a religious belief. However BLP issues were not raised once during that AfD, as far as I can see. --Avenue (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that it is simply a mistake of omission that WP:BLPCAT does not expressly include ethnicity as well. The related policies about categories lump ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality together.  WP:BLPCAT needs to add the other two.  Ethnic nationalists of all types often argue tendentiously about labeling prominent people they can be proud of as part of their group.  These people ought to have the right to self-identify as part of that group, anything else seems contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have figured there was already and ongoing discussion. See - Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons.Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Griswaldo

(Restarting indents) This is a much smaller and more resolveable issue than the enormous question being debated at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. If we assume for the moment that there exists in Wikipedia a List of Jewish Nobel laureates, should not such a list explain what rules it uses to classify people as Jewish?betsythedevine (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only valid rules according to WP:BLPCAT would be that (a) they self-identified as Jewish, and (b) their Jewishness was relevant to them being Nobel laureates. I suspect that the resultant list will be fairly short... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is precisely the problem. The BLPCAT policy is not being followed in most Lists.  I'm not sure when that "must be relevant" policy was established, but it was a mistake, and is not being followed.  Using that policy to prune a particular list (when scores of lists are not following it) is senseless. --Noleander (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think the "must be relevant" policy was a mistake (I don't) then try to get it changed. Having rules that 'nobody' follows is senseless, particularly when the same rules can then be cited to push a particular POV. There are enough people engaging in Wikilawyering over rules we at least attempt to follow, without giving them unenforced rules to play with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've made a change proposal on the BLP talk page. But it looks like there is a lot of heat on that Talk page, and not much light. So Im not optimistic. --Noleander (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that those rules are the only reasonable interpretation of how WP:BLPCAT should apply to this list, because BLPCAT seems to apply to statements about the religious beliefs of living people, but not about their cultural background or ethnicity. In fact, we have an experienced editor maintaining on the list's talk page that BLPCAT doesn't apply at all to the list for this reason. I wouldn't go that far, but I do find the situation very unclear.
 * However, there are two cases that do seem clear to me. If a laureate (1) identified as Jewish, but not in a religious sense, then BLPCAT apparently would not apply. Thus BLPCAT's requirements for self-identification and that their Jewishness was relevant to them being a Nobel laureate would not apply either. Another situation that seem clear to me is laureates who are religious but not ethnic Jews, e.g. recent converts, to whom BLPCAT would definitely seem to apply. But all other cases seem to fall into a grey area, where it is quite unclear to me whether BLPCAT applies. This would include entries for laureates where it is unclear whether the laureate was Jewish in some sense other than a religious one, or where they are Jewish in both a religious and an ethnic sense. Why do you think BLPCAT applies in these cases? --Avenue (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, which is probably where Noleander's post should have been placed. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now read through that twice. There are several proposals there for changes to BLPCAT, none of which seems to have gathered a clear consensus, so I don't see how it answers my question. It does make clear that this is not an isolated problem. --Avenue (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes there's a very simple solution to this problem. That being delete the list. It serves no purpose because the Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners doesn't have a Jews & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it, and will never have such an article because there's nothing to say except "A good number of Nobel Prize winners had a Jewish parent." Furthermore having members of a distinct ethnic group win the prize often is also not a list-worthy characteristic. Nobody feels the need to make List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates, though if it were created on the same criteria as the Jewish list (having a recent ancestor of German ethnicity), there'd be just as many self-identifying candidates. Furthermore, despite what's being said here, about 1/3rd of the list maintains various other ethnic ancestries in addition to Jewish, and many more have never outright stated they identify as being "Jewish." (e.g., It's never mentioned that Otto Wallach -- who is frequently listed as only Jewish -- is only approximately 1/4th Jewish by ethnic descent -- his Jewish grandfather having converted to Protestantism and the rest of his ancestors being church-attending ethnic Germans.) I would say the exact same thing about List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates, and I plan to nominate that list for deletion first (because it's less controversial) shortly. Bull dog123 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This should especially apply to List of Jewish Nobel laureates -- every name on it is being tagged as "Jewish" without any disclaimer or modifier. An explanation of why that identification -- ethnicity? religion? self-identification? -- is made should be given either name by name or else at the beginning of the list.betsythedevine (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should at least say how people qualify for inclusion in the list. We had an explanation that appeared to have consensus until it was removed in this edit a month ago. Now there is no consensus at the talk page that the list requires any such explanation, let alone what it should say. --Avenue (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Before somebody says that a list is not a category, the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is being used like a category in that the Andre Geim article has repeatedly been tagged with a See also section whose only member is List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which amounts to a prominent claim that Geim is unmodified-ly Jewish. betsythedevine (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Betsy is 100% correct. This backdoor technique of using lists to replace the functionality of categories on Jewish pages is not exclusive to the Nobel Prize list either. A long time ago there was a massive debate about Category:Jewish mathematicians. When that category was deleted, List of Jewish mathematicians popped up and a handful of users began to surreptitiously add the list to "See Also" sections of the articles formerly under the category. Today, the Nobel Prize list is popping up in See Also sections for various people like Otto Warburg, basically suggesting that Warburg is famous FOR being Jewish. Note: Warburg's father's family converted to Protestantism and his mother was a Christian gentile... so how exactly is his career/life defined by being Jewish? Bull dog123  14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You badly want the list deleted, so you see everything through that lens. I think that the best remedy for somebody adding such a list to "See also" sections where it doesn't belong is to remove it from those sections and dissuade them doing it again - not to delete the list itself. --Avenue (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the list has now been AfDed (again) with discussion ongoing.betsythedevine (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've gone ahead and speedy deleted it WP:CSD (recreation of deleted page) and WP:SALTed it to prevent renewed recreation without a WP:DRV. There are lots of inbound links (from all the list members I guess) which need cleaning up. Rd232 talk 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the list's creator has gotten it undeleted again. And the  AfD is a mess. Uninvolved editors are urged to check out the policy issues raised. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at List of Jewish mathematicians, the first living entry I found, Philip Dawid, has nothing in the article suggesting he's Jewish, he was in 2 Jewish cats and another list, List of British Jewish scientists. There's a huge number of these lists. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that we have three solutions here:
 * Closely watch all such list articles and enforce the BLP requirement for sources supporting self-identification.
 * Move all such articles to "List of such-and-such of Jewish descent".
 * Delete all such lists.
 * Not sure which is the more appropriate solution. Yworo (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there may be 100s of such lists, so closely watching them is virtually impossible (and not a good way for experienced editors to use their time). Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment the people who WP:OWN the list claim the list is exempt from the WP:BLPCAT requirement for self-identification because 1) ethnicity is excluded from teh requirement for self-identification and 2) the article is a list not a category. If some uninvolved editors were able to establish which Wikipedia policies should apply to the list, that might improve the future ability of a few random incomers interested in Wikipedia's accuracy and policies to correct the systemic bias of the list's proponents. betsythedevine (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT specifically includes lists, both in its heading and the text. "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation". Further, as the term "Jewish" is ambigious and can refer to religion, the principles of WP:BLP require us to treat it as such. Further, a main principle of our BLP policy is "Do no harm". We need only one example of a subject objecting that being misidentified as Jewish has caused them harm, and we have that quite clearly in Andre Geim's statement, "I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish". This is enough to show the potential for causing harm by including living persons who do not self-identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that reasoning, especially since the misconception that the term "Jewish" refers only religious belief seems to be widespread, and not just a theoretical or isolated misconception. --Avenue (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the list should be deleted. TFD (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, and same for the list of Jewish mathematicians referred to above. Feketekave (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis Connor
This article is about my aunt who is a very private person and doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. How can I have the article removed? Thank you so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayn4peace (talk • contribs) 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - Prodded,WP:PROD and removed non free picture from a living persons infobox. Note - The amount of picture violations that are throughout wikipedia it is always a good idea to have a good look at not only the content but also the pictures in an article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"If someone considers themselves atheist they are atheist"
The above sentiment is often expressed, I think, when compiling blps. But how quick should WP be to document an individual's expressions of belief. For example, a young C. S. Lewis had left the Church of Ireland as a young adult, going through phases where he was an atheist to where he henceforth became a believer in a type of mystical paganism (according to his autobiography Surprised by Joy). If WPdia had been around when Lewis was 26, should it have said (imagining a 1925 Wikipedia, lol), "Lewis is an atheist" and then "Lewis has more recently self-identified as pagan"? What brings me to this question is the case of famous web entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg mentioned in an on-line forum that he doesn't believe in God and now his blp states that he was raised Jewish but now says he's atheist. What is the best way for responsible Wiki biographers to handle this issue?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about not mentioning religious beliefs (or lack of) at all unless they are actually relevant to the reasons for the notability of the person in question? According to WP:BLPCAT, it is specifically forbidden to add a living person to a religion-related category unless it is:
 * "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity."
 * I'd say that with specific regard to C. S. Lewis, there are good enough grounds to discuss his religion in a biography (actually, it would be bizarre not to), but this needs to show how his beliefs changed over time.
 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to have the sentence from the Zuckerberg article quoted: "Zuckerberg was raised Jewish, including having had a Bar Mitzvah when he turned 13, although he has since described himself as an atheist." The sentence is in the section called Personal life, which essentially describes his early life, college life, and then some stuff after college. Many articles about living people discuss their ethnicity, religion, etc., as background information without it being controversial. I don't believe that the policy on categorization applies to a discussion in the article itself. We say that someone is American without insisting that their Americanism be related to one of their notable activities. We talk about where they went to school in the same way.


 * The main issue in the article (discussed at some length on the Talk page) has not been about whether to include the information, but, rather, (1) whether to juxtapose his Jewish upbringing with his later statements about atheism and (2) whether we should say "describe" or "consider" instead of "is" when addressing his atheism. With respect to the first issue, someone challenged the "although" in the sentence (at that time, it was a "however" or a "but", can't remember, but same idea) because you can be Jewish without believing in a deity. I - and others - maintained that the "although" doesn't imply that he no longer considers himself ethnically Jewish or that he necessarily believed in a deity when he was a child, it's just a natural way of expressing a change in his views. With respect to the second issue, I just wanted to stick to the sources (one says "consider" and the other says "describe"), and I thought the language flowed better and was softer. Also, with the final wording, if we used "is", we would have had to say "he has since become", which isn't necessarily accurate and, in my view, goes too far. The main challenger on these two issues, an editor named Gilisa, seemed okay with the final wording, although I probably shouldn't speak for someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless the information is included in the second paragraph without any indication as to how it relates to the things that make him notable. Why are his religious beliefes given such prominence? This question, I know, may be better raised on the talk page for the article concerned, but it does raise issues relevant across Wikipedia. There is a tendency to place great prominence on the ethnicity, race, religion and/or nationality of subjects, regardless of whether these topics are relevant.Hobson (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

...I suppose that if Wikipedia had existed in 1925, when Lewis was 26--the same age Mark Zuckerberg is now--it could conceivably have said during that year, "The notable Oxford lecturer in philosophy C. S. Lewis has said he has not believed in God since about the year 1913, when 14 years old." Then, someone might conceivably have updated the blp four years later in 1929 to say, "Yet, Lewis more recently said he has become a believer in some kind of universal God entity, having expressed an abiding interest in ancient Northern European folk beliefs, etc." Then, in 1931, a theoretical, then-contemporary Wikipedia could state, "In the current year, C. S. Lewis re-converted to Christianity, writing extensively on the subject." But, if he was then known (in 1925, when still an atheist) to attend his Anglican services at Easter, fast a bit for Lent, etc., would it be a theoretical 1925 Wikipedia's place to say he was not Anglican by culture? or should it finesse the issue and simply say he was an Anglican (Church of Ireland) by birth who in youth nonetheless had come to disbelieve in God......?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going on at disproportionate length in the Zuckerberg page (and many others...). As per BLP policy, living persons' religious beliefs are private, unless relevant to the subject's notability; IMHO, so are people's early religious backgrounds - perhaps even more so. If we are in a dilemma because somebody's beliefs are not in accord with his or her background, and we do not want to mention the former (because of BLP policy), that is yet another reason for not going into the latter (that is, to avoid misconceptions). If somebody's "ethnicity", however constructed (surely Zuckerberg is not a Yiddish speaker from late 19th century Moldavia?), involves implications as to his "true" religion, that is yet another reason for not going into that. Feketekave (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isaac Asimov and Steven Weinberg as well as Yuval Ne'eman, all are Jewish atheists who considered themselves very Jewish nonetheless. There are many more such examples. Jews don't usually cease from seeing other Jew as Jewish because he/she's became self declared atheist, most observant Jews have one or more in their close family circle. I agree that it's different from one culture to another or from one religion to another. Judaism, for instance, is very different from Christianity simply because being Jewish doesn't only refer to the religious aspect, but also to the ethnic one. Interestingly, while this bundle of ethnic origin, culture and religion was emphasized before by those who seek the harm of Jews-today radical anti Israeli activists try to describe the Jewish people as nothing more than religious group (that include secular people as well)-as people who share no common history, culture and certainly not origin. This is all very far from the main stream scientific view. There are exceptionals within the Jewish people because of the importance of religion. That is for instance, one can convert to Judaism without having any common origin or history with Jews what so ever and to be considered by very most of the Jews as Jewish. According to the Jewish faith, conversion is not reversible so if he then decide he's an atheist, he's just a very secular Jew from the Jewish law view. But most Jews were born Jewish so it save us the dilemma: I honestly think that you can't define any group by its exceptionals. I agree that there is a difference from other religions, because German atheist is simply German, not Christian-and former Christian is not longer Christian because Christianity and Islam and other religions are not accompanied with certain ethnicity.  As for Zuckerberg, he was member in Jewish fraternity while he was student and for the matter of this discussion it wouldn't be too much to assume that he was atheist already then. He identify himself as Jewish at present (though I wasn't able to find English source), oh, and look on this.--Gilisa (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the term "atheism" itself may be outdated in the Western world. Maybe it fit better in 16th century Europe when the term was apparently created. Naturally, when 99.9% of the population belonged to some religion, it was reasonable to put a label on the 1 out of a 1,000 who opted out. But the Ages of science, industry, space, communication, and cyberspace, have changed things a bit. Not everyone must belong to some -ism ("doctrine or belief") anymore. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Also the word "exist", as in "does God exist", is much more complex today due to the understandings of modern science. Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should say somebody is an atheist if, but only if, he or she has said so him- or herself. A topical case in point is the new UK Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband, who has explicitly identified himself in interviews as both Jewish and an atheist. -- Alarics (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Della Rocco Griffin
Resolved This article is in the process of deletion. Ms Griffin herself did not know she had an article and is upset that she does. The "votes" are now 4 to 0 for deletion. Can someone "speedy" up the process please? Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Let me know if you need anything else on this. Probably best to email. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's now been deleted and the AfD courtesy blanked - believe there's nothing more to do here. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ingrid Daubechies
Biographies are meant to record notable work done by the people concerned, not about the many awards won/ speeches given. Someone please edit this article; it is written more like a homepage than a 3rd party objective article about the person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Daubechies (comment unsigned from User:Pratik.mallya - added by Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree that the article could use improvement, but it is an article about a notable person and has clearly been edited by quite a few others --- not a "homepage" vanity site by the subject. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ingrid Daubechies is one of the most notable women mathematicians alive today. The article is poorly written, although evidently well meaning, and has a number of biographical omissions. The extensive quote from the prize citation should simply be removed and summarised. Written in 1997, it is seriously out of date. But it would seem that this is something for WikiProject Mathematics, since articles like this normally give a detailed account of scientific contributions. Women mathematicians of equal stature are Karen Uhlenbeck, Claire Voisin and Marina Ratner. The article on Daubechies is actually slightly better than the others if anything. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjy Bronk

 * - Spedial:Contribution Rockypedia

Rockypedia continues to post and edit and vandallize to make article intentionally misleading and libelous and slanted. scroll down to second area in yellow to see the particularly libelous postings Rockypedia is making and see cited source to see he is writing it in an intentionally misleading and loaded way. [] - [] - Brazil4Olympics (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is complete nonsense from yet another sock puppet of a malicious user (originally Archhow) that has had numerous sock puppets already blocked from editing due to his behavior. Consider the following timeline:
 * In August of 2009, begins editing the Benjy Bronk page.  From then on, this user only edits the Benjy Bronk page and several other related pages, always editing info on Benjy Bronk.  Some of the edits involve changing Bronk's birthdate to reflect an age 4 years younger, attempts that were previously made from anonymous IP addresses until on the Howard Stern show, it was revealed that Bronk himself was making these anonymous edits to seem younger than he actually is.
 * Then, in the past week, more attempts were made to change this birthdate, and to remove one entire section of the page (which was not even originally added by me, I simply noticed the deletion) until Archhow was blocked from editing temporarily. This user then moved on to sock puppet, which was also blocked, and then sock puppet , which was also blocked as well - both sock puppets made nearly exactly the same edits to the Benjy Bronk page, and no other edits.
 * The user then moved on to using another long-dormant sock puppet, whose entire contributions consisted of a series of Bronk-related edits from 2006-2007,, and only after the other three accounts were blocked did this account begin making edits again to the Benjy Bronk page. Having this sock puppet exposed as well prompted this user to create yet another sock puppet, the above  who made a series of useless edits to the Phobos page in the space of 9 minutes and the Danielle Staub page in another 7 minutes (12 edits in all).  Obviously these edits were made in a clumsy attempt to mask his true intention, which was to edit the now-protected Benjy Bronk page, as he probably found he could not edit a protected page until he made at least 10 edits and had to wait 4 days.  Since achieving auto-confirmed status, this sock puppet has also been editing only the Benjy Bronk page.
 * During my attempted reverting of vandalism on the Bronk page, I have noticed that this person probably does not even rise to the level of notability required in the first place. There are many staffers on The Howard Stern Show that get only a mention on The Howard Stern Show Staff page, and no page of their own; some of whom have far more verifiable info available about them than Benjy Bronk.  Most of the info on the Bronk page  is superfluous minutiae that isn't even cited by anything more than a Howard Stern fan site.  I propose that the relevant, cited info, what little of it there is, be merged into  The Howard Stern Show Staff page and this article deleted for non-notability.   In the meantime, the latest sock puppets  and   should also be at least temporarily blocked from editing.Rockypedia (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, with the citations so far provided, I also don't see much individual notability and would support merging to the best location and deletion at AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would nominate the article for merge and deletion myself, but I have to admit that I have no idea where to even start such a process (I'm relatively a wikipedia neophyte). Some help here would be appreciated; if another more senior editor would take on the process, I would be happy to take part in the discussion afterwards.Rockypedia (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I figured it out, but I'm not sure about step 3: - where does that go?  Other than that, I think I did it right, off now to notify others that have edited the page.Rockypedia (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)



Michael Cartwright (artist)
Could someone give this article the once over it's an autobiography which I consider has a lamentable number of references and unclear notability.  Teapot  george <sup style="color:blue;">Talk  19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is up for deletion. You can help zap it here (or unzap it, of course).  Meanwhile, let's put this BLPN discussion on hold.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Darren Levine
Similar to Articles_for_deletion/Krav_Maga_Worldwide, POV, Advertising, Censorship, Conflict of Interest. Contributor is subject of article; Contributor removes cited information conflicting with his/her point of view with no justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.45.250 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be any ongoing edit wars at Darren Levine, and the article's contents seem to be pretty uncontroversial (there's some link rot to address with the inline cites, but none of it strikes me as hugely problematic) - I'm not seeing an ongoing BLP issue here. Can you tell us exactly what the problem is?
 * Otherwise, the sentence you quoted was the rationale in an Afd discussion that ended with "delete" two years ago - if you think this article too should be deleted then you'd need to go to WP:AFD. I haven't assessed the sources from the perspective of establishing notability so have no comment about the likely outcome there at this point.Gonzonoir (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nataliya Berkut - I want to post my biografy on my Wikipedia page.
Nataliya's Bio
 * Born 05.30.1975. Education: Chernihiv National Pedagogical University. TG Shevchenko: Gold Medal, Master Degree. Married. Husband - honored coach of Ukraine in Track and field. In business since 13 y.o. Professional carrier since 1998. My sports successes achieved: 5000m–14.59–national record;10 000m–31.08–national record;5km -15.13–national record;10km–31.14–national record;15km–48.49–national record;20km–1.05.42–national record;25km–1.24.09–national record;Half Marathon–1.10.24;Marathon-2.32.15;2004 Olympian 10,000m;2008 Olympian 10,000m;7th 1998 European Cup 5000m;2nd 1999 Euro Cup 5000m;1st 2001 Euro Cup 5000m;1st 2008 Euro Cup 5000m;1st Ukraine Championships 10,000m–1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008;1st Ukraine Championships 5,000m–1998,2000,2001,2004,2006,2007,2008;2001 Edmonton World Championships 10,000m;2nd 2003 Holland Half Marathon;1st 2003 Poland Half Marathon;13th 2003 New York Marathon;2003 Paris Word Championships10,000m;9th 2004 Puerto-Rico World’s Best 10k;3rd 2004 Holland Half Marathon;1st 2004 Tula (Russia) 5000m;3rd 2004 Russia Championship 10000m;3rd 2004 Nagano (Japan) Marathon;1st 2004 Dusseldorf (Germany) 5km;1st 2005 Poland Half Marathon;6th 2005 Philadelphia Half Marathon;1st 2005 BAA(Boston) Half Marathon;1st 2005 Greensboro,NC 5km;1st 2005 Baltimore Half Marathon;4th 2005 Okayama (Japan) Half Marathon;3rd 2006 Manchester (UK) Road Race 10km;5th 2006 Peachtree Road Race Atlanta, GA 10km;2nd 2006 Freihofer’s Run for Women 5km Albany,NY;9th 2006 Puerto-Rico World’s Best 10km;5th 2006 Circle of Friends (Mini Marathon)10km NY,NY;8th 2006 IAAF World Road Championship 20km Debrecen (Hungary);5th 2006 New Delhi (India) Half Marathon;1st 2006 Puerto-Rico 10km;5th 2006 Sanyo Half Marathon Okayama (Japan);2nd 2007 Backon to Beach 10km;4th 2007 Flamouth 10ml;4th 2007 Delhi Half Marathon;1st 2008 Jakarta (Indonesia) Road Race10km;1st '08 Peachtree Road Race10km;1st '09 Cyprus World Championship on police in command. Etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.107.179 (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ? Nataliya Berkut already exists! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dani Johnson
This article is pure self promotion. It was tagged for notability in December 2009 and has not been refimproved since. I have researched it and the only third party ref is SourceeCommerce.com, which actually advertises this article "for more information on Dani Johnson". Her one book, "Grooming The Next Generation For Success" is published by Destiny Image, whose stated mission is to; [http://www.destinyimage.com/client/client_pages/company.cfm ...to accurately represent authors who have a call to share God's present word to His people and to make these authors easily accessible to the Christian body around the world in every form of media possible. Ultimately, we desire to help and encourage Christians everywhere to deepen their relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ by allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to their hearts and change their lives].
 * which would seem to suggest that Gore's publication, and this article, are more to promote the Faith than the article appears to suggest, a case of evangelising. lhis article is effectively being used to promote Gore's book.

This is a flagrant breach of wiki policy and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Mark Dask 10:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Speedily deleted CSD and salted as article has been repeatedly created. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen to that Rob - I knew it was suspect but was unaware it had been previously deleted when I proposed it. Mark  Dask 16:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I once asked how to check for that and it is a bit hit and miss and trial exploratory searches that I don't think its worth attempting to find previous deletions - It could well be easier for Admins as they can see deleted content. Basically if it is rubbish now it doesn't matter if it was low notability rubbish before, it needs improving or nominating. Thanks for you assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the name Gore, above, I meant Johnson. I dont care for wiki policy here, only that wikipedia aint used by evangelists. All I care about in this instance is that Dani Johnson aint allowed to use Wikipedia to sell her wares in the future on this site.  orangemike appears to have achieved that - bye bye Dani Johnson - thank you orange guy.  Mark  Dask 19:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation in a page title?
Could someone take a look at my tagging [redacted] of an article for speedy deletion per G10 - I believe the title alone is a BLP violation (the person involved has not been convicted of any such crime). Is there any way to oversight the existence of this title entirely? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Page has been deleted; going to put this question straight to the deleting admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And now I've taken it to requests for oversight... Gonzonoir (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dancing with myself - indeed sometimes it seems that way. Thanks for your work. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem :) I'll update this section with the oversighters' response for the benefit of any interested parties. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's that update: an oversighter has now repressed the deletion action, which has reduced but not entirely removed the visibility of the pagename. The oversighters also found the question a bit of a curveball :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Henci Goer
I have tried to improve this article but the more I researched it the more fragile it became. One "award" is from a body I cannot find any evidence of - let alone verify the award itself, while the second award, from Lamaze, is from Ms Goer's employers - ie - in their own commercial interest. The only 3rd party reference is one I provided - that being the ISBN for one of her books. To put it simply - the only online info I can find regarding Ms Goer is either stuff she wrote herself, or her bosses award to her for 10 years employment. Perhaps it should be deleted as not noteable. Please let me know what you decide. Mark Dask 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I proposed speedy deletion of the Henci Goer page, and the tag was immediately removed. I had previously prodded it but, for the reasons given above, I thought it qualified for speedy deletion. I have now reverted to the prod tag - with reasons - in the hope of finding concensus among administrators over the next 7 days. I hope thats okay. Mark Dask 11:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A prod template is not supposed to be removed and replaced, if its prodd-ness is disputed, best is to move up to AFD.See detail here Proposed deletion - Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - simply a matter of inexperience on my part - the prod is not in fact yet disputed. I will let it run its course.  Mark  Dask 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for clearing that up. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shayne Corson
In the Personal LIfe section, 3rd paragraph it is falsely stated that I had an affair with teammate Alex Mogilny's wife. That was a rumor which began on an online blog and was widely talked about, but untrue.

Please remove this immediately.

In 2003 during the quarter-finals of the playoffs I left the Maple Leafs roster due to medical issues regarding panic and anxiety. I have never in my career sat in the Toronto press box. Alexander Mogilny had taken a personal leave of absence earlier in the season due to a completely independent issue, he did miss some games during the playoffs, but due to a physical injury. The reports that speculate that I was asked to leave the team in order to persuade Mogilny to return, who had left due to the circumstances at hand is untrue. If you require further information to verify this you may contact the Toronto Maple Leafs organization, Coach Pat Quinn, Dr. Brian Shaw of the NHLPA and/or Alex Mogilny. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Shayne Corson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.119 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The unsourced contentious material has been removed. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Francis Moriarty
Could you guys take a look at this? It's not terrible -- not a hoax, not factually incorrect. But I don't know if it deserves to be there. The subject is one among many longtime journalists in Hong Kong. There are many of similar or greater stature who don't have wiki pages. This isn't a criticism of his work, but he's not a celebrity, public figure, prominent TV personality, etc. We don't have pages on everyone who's worked long and well in a field. This page was written by a user banned as a "sock puppet" among other violations. So it makes me question the page. Pumpkin888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkin888 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 

Bernard d'Abrera
An editor is insisting on citing material to (i) a notorious WP:FRINGE blog (evolutionnews.org, the blog of the Discovery Institute) & (ii) this legal complaint (for the truth of claims that the complaint alleges, but also for a number of claims that the complaint does not even make). The former would appear to be blatantly in violation of WP:BLPSPS. The latter of WP:RSN consensus (e.g. here) that complaints and indictments are only an RS for the fact that an allegation has been made, never for the truth of the allegations. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - * - as a side issue it is at AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - It seems also to me after looking at the discussions and links provided that this http://findforms.com/single_form.php/form/307140/Notice_Other_District_Court_of_Federal_Claims_District_federal is not a reliable source to support any content from. It is basically just a primary report of a court doc... and this is no better than an opinionated blog http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pickpocketed_by_the_smithsonia040041.html - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the talk page, a court submission by a plaintiff is effectively a self-published source. Except that as it forms part of the permanent record and is a part of legal proceedings, it is more reliable than say a note on someone's personal webpage. It is quite acceptable to use a self-published source for information about that person within normal parameters.
 * I note that the complainant (Hrafn) is being rather tendentious in making edits such as changing 'research' to 'visit', in the context of d'Abrera's life's work studying butterflies (the context of which should be understand that d'Abrera is a creationist which is causing some controversy). I do not see any reason to doubt Mr. d'Abrera's account of his life work, as it seems to be supported by his published body of work, and as such I do not see any problem with the 'findforms' cite supporting what should normally (absent editors seeking to cast doubt on Mr. d'Abrera's credibility) be considered uncontroversial biographical detail such as how many photographs he has taken or where he took them. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't use court submissions as self published sources, they often contain content about other living people and no notability is asserted. If you want to cite how many butterflies he has caught today and its notable then find it in an independent WP:RS that is reporting that and use that to support your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is this. The OP states 'The latter of WP:RSN consensus (e.g. here) that complaints and indictments are only an RS for the fact that an allegation has been made, never for the truth of the allegations'
 * I have no argument with that. The point in this case is that the source is NOT used for any allegations at all, that's a blatant misrepresentation by the OP here, it is used for biographical detail provided by Mr. d'Abrera. Specifically:


 * the museums he has worked with/in
 * the fact that he spent 37 years photographing butterflies in the Natural History Museum
 * the number of images and species he has photographed
 * that he has described over 100 new species and subspecies and several new genera
 * and NO ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE ABOUT ANYBODY
 * If you can point me to the consensus that says we can't use the court documents provided by a person as a source for noncontroversial information about that person, well I'm all ears. But otherwise, there clearly is no logical difference between someone's website (which could quite possible contain offensive material about third parties) and someone's legal submission about themself. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I already noted on talk, the complainant is quite happy with creating hatchet biogs: that are based on information published by the Discovery Institute, and likewise has in the past made similar objections to creating balanced biographies  as against WP:BLP-violating hatchet jobs. The Discovery Institute is the publisher of the source, I don't see that it qualifies as a blog. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - note - I haven't had much of a look at the diffs presented with allegations of hatchet jobs, if there are issues with another article best is to report it separately and the report can be more easily investigated. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a blog to me, no obvious editorial control, don't see independent publishers quoting it, opinionated blog. The legal doc is out anyways, you can take the other Discovery site to the RSN and ask them there if you can use it to support your content....

'''In 2010 he received a settlement from the Smithsonian Institute of $120,000 after they reused 1,352 of his butterfly images with seeking permission for a book on moths of Burma. Thomas Emmel of the Florida Museum of Natural History has said [5][unreliable source?] "He is a controversial biologist," "but one whose remarkable lifetime accomplishments publishing an illustrated catalogue of butterflies of the world must be admired for a unique contribution that will likely never be duplicated."'''

If this is notable you should be able to find it in a better source, it is a BLP article for which we are looking for high quality reliable citation to support such claims, if it is notable it will be in other source? The legal link you are trying to use includes the living subjects address and should not be added again. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for this discussion; I have started a thread on RSN regarding the court document. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it to any location you want, you won't get any different answer. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in 2010
Severe BLP issues with this page. There is no References section, at all. Just listed bare-links next to the entries. What if the links go dead? What if someone wants to cite a newspaper, a book, a magazine? This is entirely an inappropriate formatting structure for information related to WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, if they're truly dead then BLP does not apply. Second, there appears to be plenty of bare EL's in other "deaths in..." articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: One of the users that added poorly sourced info to the page,, removed a BLP warning from the account's user talk page with the edit summary, "cleanup". There indeed appears to be very cavalier flouting against WP:BLP at Deaths in 2010, in addition to fundamental site policy issues such as WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to, see WP:BDP. There are BLP issues to be considered here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are sourcing, referencing, and cleanup issues to be considered, and this and similar articles do indeed deal with real people. What I have not seen is a specific assertion of unsourced negative content.  Digging through the various articles might very well turn some up, of course, and scrutiny for such is well-advised, but concern is accurately based more on quantity (lots of mediocre entries) than on a specific concern that a particular person may be harmed, am I right? Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is mainly a formatting issue. All one would need to do, if one were interested in being WP:BOLD would be to convert these to proper footnotes.  It seems a minor fix.  -- Jayron  32  05:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does, doesn't it? And yet users such as, seem quite resistant to this BLP related improvement. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: In response to above recommendation from, please see this edit. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now ten references have been formatted, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here because WWGB raised an issue on my talk page, and I have to admit a bit of a conflict in my eyes. On one hand, I continue to be disappointed with the reliability of sourcing for Britton Chance's death – I would expect that, within a week, there would be some uncontroversially reliable sources mentioning his death, as a famous medical researcher and Olympic gold medalist, but everything I have seen is problematic at best and seems to stem from information presented in a blog article (ie. I see no verification of his death independent of this source). I do think WWGB made an error in the source that he used to present the death, although I think the types of warnings left for an established user such as himself were a bit excessive. I want to speak in his defense a bit - the Deaths in 20XX pages are incredibly difficult to maintain and no one on Wikipedia does a better job than WWGB. He has maintained the page for years and done an admirable job of it, for even despite the fact that the Deaths in 20XX pages are all among my most edited articles, he still finds mistakes that I make and corrects them as due. So firstly, I think think that if we start escalating warnings on each other's page and avoid speaking directly, we're going to cause more drama than is necessary. I noticed that Cirt, whom I have known to be nothing but an exceptional editor and administrator in my limited dealings with them, has taken to converting the bare URLs to proper references, despite a previous talk page consensus, as well as a controversial semi-protection. Regarding the latter matter, I understanding the rationale behind this (Deaths in 2010 has been a highly-vandalized – and remains a highly visible – page on Wikipedia), but I think that the semi-protection was a bit of an over-reaction; if WWGB can make an error, then anyone could, and I think under the current circumstances, the semi-protection limits valuable IP edits more than it protects against BLP vandalism. I think that there are some concerns about reference styling and BLP that are legitimate, but I think the first step should be to clear the air a bit, because I know that WWGB and Cirt have only the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Hopefully with that said, we can follow up on discussions at Talk:Deaths in 2010 rather than have to deal with the issue on my talk page, Cirt's talk page, WP:BLPN, WWGB's talk page etc. etc. My point in all of this is that I think we can work this out on the appropriate talk page, and centralize the discussion there. Canadian  Paul  06:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some very good comments have been raised, here, including those of . The issue is relevant to WP:BLP, specifically, WP:BDP. It is worthwhile to continue centralized discussion, here, at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven no objections to centralizing the discussion here, but perhaps we should make note of that at Deaths in 2010 in the two threads that have been started there? I know that there are some long-term editors who would be happy to comment here if this is the more appropriate venue. I think if we can all agree to discussing in one place, then the issues that have been raised will be more easily solved - sometimes I feel like the Deaths in 20XX pages run on sporadic or even implied consensus, so it would be nice to have a direct link to... well, you know, link to, if need be. Canadian   Paul  06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm tired and I'm going to bed, haha. Hopefully this will all work out to everyone's satisfaction. Canadian   Paul  06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I share that hope. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do I assume, one week on, that this 'discussion' has ground to a halt ? Where does this leave the question of the formatting of references ?
 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see ten have been formatted - that just leaves about another 280, why not start formatting the new additions and get the regulars there to slowly every now and again do ten and slowly they will get formatted.Check links results looks good and doesn't reveal any excessive dead links issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have strong views either way on this issue. However, I think Canadian Paul's valid comment that Deaths in 20XX maybe operates on 'sporadic or even implied consensus' is yet to be addressed. Various interested parties do not appear to have commented here (or even elsewhere), and in my view that is not consensus. If future editors are to have a reasonably clear (by Wiki standards) guideline over the issue of formatting, then it seems to me that further input/discussion/rationale/broad agreement is needed. Merely quoting, for example WP:BLP (bearing in mind that the entries are clearly not biographies of living persons anymore), does not seem to really address the specific issue here. Truly, I do not have a hidden agenda, and am happy to go with the generally agreed, sensibly discussed, consensus - but presently that does not seem to be apparent. Broadly speaking, when I next add something to the article, as I do on occasion, which formatting style should I adopt ? Or, please forgive me, have I missed something ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't have real strong views, 280 refs is a big ref section. You could start adding format style of your choice as long as it has ref tags to show up in the reference section. I use Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As strong views, or indeed any views, seem to have dried up here, I am assuming that the status quo regarding formatting of entries at Deaths in 20XX is perfectly acceptable. The "severe BLP issues" debate is dead, n'est pas ? Moreover, without really trying to press the point, this now constitutes Wikipedia agreed consensus that can be referred back to, should the subject arise in the future ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

David Draiman
article about David Draiman - discussing whether he is jewish or not and if so, should he be listed in categories related to jewish people (jewish musicians, jewish americans, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Draiman&action=historysubmit&diff=399641653&oldid=399526685

in sum: thefrozenfire has removed any reference to david draiman as jewish since david proclaimed in an interview that he is 'not religious'. i have tried to show thefrozenfire that within judaism, one need not be religious to still be jewish. including very active jews in the jewish community and in the non-jewish community (i.e., the world). ("religious" within judaism means "observant", as in following the commandments, which most orthodox jews do, some conservative and reform jews do, but very few others. AND, only about 20% of the jewish world is 'religious').

while i disagree with thefrozenfire regarding his (obscure) definition of being jewish (he contends you must be religious - even though he is not jewish....), i would be willing to accept his definition IF every article on wikipedia regarding jews and the jewish people would follow it. for example, go to the page about jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews - you would have to get rid of three of the four pictures there since only one of them is religious. (and the same for jewish americans, jewish politicians, jewish sports players, etc.)

and how could you possibly have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Secular_organizations if one must be religious to be considered jewish????

anyway, i can give you numerous examples of the general principle. in addition, i did give thefrozenfire a specific example of where david says that he is indeed jewish: http://www.concertlivewire.com/interviews/disturbed.htm (Livewire: You're Jewish, correct? David: Oh yeah.) but alas, that was still not good enough for him.

can someone please help? since this discussion with thefrozenfire started, he has gone ahead and changed several other articles where people are listed as jewish and removed it. it almost seems like he is trying to 'cover up' or 'cleanse' or i don't what about jews...very strange. thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jewish is not a religion - Judaism is the religion. He is clearly not a follower of Judaism as he clearly said so, that means he shouldn't be in the infobox as religion - Jewish. that doesn't stop him being Jewish as an ethnicity though. Well, thats what I have understood from previous discussions. Personally I don't support ethnic profiling, not in the infobox anyways. So, yes you seem to be wrong to be adding religion Jewish to the infobox, do you not hear the subject saying he is not religious?  Draiman is of Jewish ancestry, but insists that he is not religious. .. I also do not see the need for the word .. insists .. its a bit weaselly, it is enough for him to say he is not religious, there is no need for him to insist. The cats, I don't see any reason for him not to be in American Jew and one of the music cats, Jewish musician seems plenty, no need to over categorize. I have left the other involved user a note and a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The major confusion here is what the Jewish categories actually refer to. It is obvious to anyone who considers the matter that the lack of distinction between being ethnically Jewish and being religiously Jewish is confusing. I make no secret of the fact that I find the intentionally muddying of the two wholly dishonest and malicious. A person's religion should not be decided for them for no other reason than that they were born to religious parents. Draiman insists - yes, *insists* - that he is not religious. Thus, it should have never been indicated on his BLP that he is religious. That's precisely what the BLP policy regarding religion is about.
 * I, personally, would greatly like to see a distinction made on every Jewish BLP category between ethnic and religious. Otherwise, it's often assumed that anyone who is "Jewish" is religious.
 * On another note, this issue is also greatly one of reliable sources. Soosim, you made two personal comments directed at my work, so I must counter with this: You seem very evidently non-neutral when it comes to editing Jewish-related articles. You've made several edits to BLP articles indicating that individuals are both Jewish in ethnicity, and Jewish religiously. You failed to offer *any* references to back up those claims. You now proceed to insist that because I'm not a Jew, I shouldn't be passing judgement on who is a Jew and who is not. I think it is quite distinctly the other way around; your bias towards favouring Judaism has evidently caused you to make several edits that have violated the core principles of Verifiability and No Original Research.
 * TheFrozenFire (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry i haven't responded sooner - been busy with the worst natural disaster here ever. ok, back to wiki business. "jewish" means being a jew. being born a jew makes you a jew, as does converting to judaism (which is the name of the religion). see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jewish -- one is longer a jew only when one converts out of the religion to another religion (and even then, there are many rabbis and leaders who say you are still a jew....). anyway, the point is that once a jew, always a jew. (we don't let go so easily!). being 'religious' has NOTHING to do with it. at all. as i have said, 80% of the jews worldwide are not 'religious' but still very much jewish. there is NO muddying of the distinction between the two for they are ONE AND THE SAME. let's say that draiman insisted that he was not a musician but only a singer. would you include him in music categories?

fro - all edits have references. no violations have taken place. you, on the other hand, seem bent on cleansing and whitewashing wikipedia of the 'jewish' category. and that, is troubling. Soosim (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith
I received a complaint from a non-wikipedian about the neutrality of this article. Looking over it myself, I find the article to be surprisingly negative, not just in the lead but throughout. The entire article, through focus, phrasing and selection of material, reads like a philippic. I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether or not the citations behind the criticism are simply excuses for the editors to attack someone they don't like, or if they represent a genuine balanced reflection of the weight given to such matters in reliable sources. I have already raised the matter on the article talk page, but I don't find the what the local editors say in support very convincing. The manner in which some negative material is enthusiastically sought and added, as shown by this section ["This story may well contain RS documentation of deception. She or her people have tried to hide the evidence, which has provided evidence of a cover up."], makes me worry a little about the main editors of the article. So I'm dropping it here as I'd like some reassurance from seasoned BLP watchers that this is an acceptable article. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, "negative" does not mean "wrong"; BLPs should reflect what reliable sources say, and reliable sources don't always have good things to say about every person. According to one of the more restrained sources on this subject (a real doctor, no less), "To anyone who knows even the slightest bit about science, she is a joke".
 * (I just spent a couple of minutes getting that book from the shelf and finding the quote; I hope others might return the courtesy by at least spending a few moments looking at specific claims and references before complaining that the article might be wrong).
 * If you can think of any specific flawed text in the article, other than a general impression of negativity, please do point it out on the talkpage; then we can either add another ref (there are 55 so far), or delete it. Various editors, including me, would be quite happy to delete any text you can point out which is not compatible with sources. Alternatively, you could delete any such text yourself.
 * bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't usually add opinions that are a bit insulting, like harry said john was an idiot and a fool .. even if we have a citation, we should try to write about living people in a conservative manner, with intellectual criticism being preferable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobrayner Negative of course does not mean wrong, but no-one ever said that. The concern is poor balance between WP:Criticism and praise, that an article about a living person appears to be no more than a well referenced written assault. Anyway, what you are saying could be correct and maybe this is justified. I am however not an expert on these matters, so not really trusting the article's main editors, all I can do is bring them to the attention of others. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the four editors who responded to you on the talkpage appear to have agreed that the criticism was actually rather mild; and you are of course encouraged to point out specific flaws or remove unsourced stuff. If, instead of those options, you would prefer to seek out other editors who might give an alternative viewpoint, that is your prerogative, and I won't push the point any further here. bobrayner (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that any biography of Gillian McKeith that presents a NPOV is going to be 'negative', in that she herself has made numerous claims about her qualifications, products etc that have turned out to be of questionable merit, and has attracted much attention in consequence. The article looks well-referenced to me, and I'm not sure how it could be 'balanced' except by removing sourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to be careful with articles like this. McKeith is a popular topic for criticism online and, dare I suggest, among the sorts of people who edit Wikipedia more. We need to constantly strive for a neutral approach. All that said, I looked through the article recently and I thought it worked pretty well. There is a lot of WP:RS criticism of McKeith: you can't talk about her work without covering the criticism of her claims as a nutritionist. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is unbalanced with negative material, clearly some of it should be removed, referenced or not. In the case of most high profile figures it is possible to write articles with mostly negative material, referenced of course, if less negative material is ignored. That doesn't make it acceptable. Lots of it is of questionable value. ASA, ok. Amanda Wynne, "senior diatician", more marginal. Why is it necessary to have a section about her "legal threats"? And who cares about Ben Goldacre and any cat-fighting between the two? Is there really no more to this woman than the depiction in this article. Like I said, I'd never even heard of her until I got the complaint, but it would be naturally surprising if this was all there was among reliable sources. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been problematic for a long time. When I last looked at it, several editors were there only to add criticism, and there was a fair bit of sockpuppetry; at least one IP address resolved to a place associated with someone who wrote about McKeith for a publication other than Wikipedia. Uninvolved eyes would probably help. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy
In the lede of Jenny McCarthy, BullRangifer has added the word "false" to the sentence "Most recently, she has written books about parenting, and has become an activist promoting (false) claims that vaccines cause autism." The word originally read "controversial," but BullRangifer's stance according to his edit summary is that "Scientific mainstream is unequivocal on this matter. She's making false claims. There is no "controversy" within medical circles. Only fringers support her POV. MEDRS rules here."

I have no stake in the matter one way or the other, but it certainly seems POV to include the phrase "activist promoting false claims" to the lede of the article. On the other hand, if this matter has already been settled medically, I certainly don't want to revert. Further opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reputable medical research supporting that link, and I think "false" is appropriate. There are some activists who continue to push it -- but they have lost the wind in their sails since Andrew Wakefield crashed and burned.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if we describe her to be 'promoting false claims' as opposed to 'promoting claims which are not supported by medical consensus', we imply she is lying as opposed to merely incorrect. That's the difference between misguided activism and fraud, and we should carefully phrase it to choose the right one.  How about this: McCarthy is an activist in the controversial area of vaccines, and she promotes the view--not held by the medical establishment or scientific consensus--that vaccines cause autism and that chelation therapy can help cure it.
 * Good point. We shouldn't make it sound like she's deliberately lying.  Something like "promoting ( false scientificaly disproven) claims that...." would be okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should soft-pedal this one. To the extent that there is public confusion in this one, parents refrain from getting their kids vaccinated and then children die from measles.  Shall we invoke WP:HARM in that regard?  I'm not sure why this particular person would get any more consideration than someone who falsely promoted the view that the Holocaust never happened -- I don't think we would use "disproven" for that, and I'm not sure why we should do it here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I once got in big trouble for accusing someone of telling a "falsehood" when I should have said "falsity". These two words mean very different things.  Surely, there must be a way to clearly state that she's wrong, without implying a deliberate lie.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nomo, at the least, you'd have to balance the risk of medical misinformation against the BLP risk. I think we can phrase it so that neither innocent children nor McCarthy are ill served. Ocaasi (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's really my point: in considering how to balance McCarthy's "BLP risk" against the harm that might come from confusion on the vaccine/autism (non)link, I think it's much better to use bold and simple language here, and I really doubt the notion that this will harm McCarthy. For one thing, "false" does not imply she is deliberately lying -- it merely makes it clear that she is wrong.  I genuinely think we're doing something wrong if we base our editing regarding this issue on "BLP fundamentalism" -- that would be a distortion of what is actually important here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2010
 * If the reliable sources that discuss the subject's views about autism use the word "false" then we should too. Otherwise, don't.
 * According to my dictionary, the word "false" sometimes means insincere. If the reliable sources don't indicate any lack of sincerity, then why should we suggest that she may be insincere?  Words like "incorrect" or "debunked" or "disproven" are perfectly adequate words, the only difference being that no one will infer dishonesty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And there we go with the BLP fundamentalism. I thrust with "children are dying from measles" and you parry with WP:RS.  Shameful.  It's just one more step to "NPOV means we have to present both sides"; sure, you haven't taken that step yourself, but this sort of approach makes it easier for those who would.  If we're simply going to invoke WP:RS, then I'm minded to add "McCarthy received an award for promoting measles", ref   -- hey, that's what the source says.  For now, I've simplified the language to try to reduce the soft-pedaling inherent in "not supported by medical consensus".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By your own "logic", you yourself are endangering children by merely referring to the subject's view as "false" instead of "vile, evil, and criminally insane."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Anythingyouwant's perspective here. I do not believe that WP:HARM (which has a limited scope confined to the damage that biological articles can do to their subjects) obliges us to position our articles to ensure optimal medical outcomes. That's why we have the medical disclaimer - our readers should not be encouraged to rely on Wikipedia when forming opinions about medical treatment. I believe that a phrasing like "contrary to medical consensus" is a perfectly adequate way of characterizing her views. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, no problem. I mean, my kids are already vaccinated, so I'll sleep well tonight regardless of what happens with this article.  As for others who might see "contrary to medical consensus" and nonetheless have doubts about whether doctors can ever agree on anything anyway -- well surely they'll check out the medical disclaimer and then do some *real* research, where they will learn the facts.  And as long as everyone else is adhering to Wikipedia policy to the letter, then no doubt we'll all sleep well -- especially Ms McCarthy, secure in the knowledge that her BLP isn't doing her any harm.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because medical scientists declare something "false" or "true" don't make it so. They could change their minds tomorrow. So, stating that medical science disagrees is factually verifiable. Saying it's "false" is editorializing, and doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BB, spare us the post-modernist epistemology. Should we say that scientists disagree with the claim that the earth is round?  Is it merely a "point of view" that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I fully agree in principle with Nomoskedasticity, I think that "disproven" is as good as "false" in this case. I mean, Jenny is probably in good faith. Lots of people who believe in fringe and wacky theories are in good faith, also per the Heinlein's razor. We shouldn't be soft in clearly declaring that the vaccine-autism link is declared bullshit by all academic consensus, but no reason to imply she's lying. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would prefer "false" (and do not think it implies she is lying), I think "disproven" would be acceptable. Unfortunately, someone has now reverted to "not supported by medical consensus".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The cited source relies on Dr. Bruce Cohen of Cleveland Clinic: "Dr. Cohen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said the government should provide the resources to study the current immunization methods. Maybe the proof we need is a study where a large group of children are vaccinated with the current vaccine schedule and another large group treated with a modified schedule, he said. After two or five years you look at how many children were immunized in each group and whether the autism rates have changed." He's not sure, and wants more study.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

 * Requests for mediation/Ed Miliband

Concerns have been raised in the course of a request for formal mediation that attempts have been made by the party who filed that request to add misleading or false content to the article. I have rejected the request for mediation, and am deferring this matter to this noticeboard in the hope that an uninvolved administrator will review the situation and ensure that no violation of our BLP policies have been made. The article is, clearly, a high-profile one (it concerns the leader of the opposition of the UK parliament), and so there is a pressing need for only verifiable facts to be added by our editors; my worry is that other content is being added.

AGK  23:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for the notification, but without a specific unresolved dispute this issue seems to be stale now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go take a look and see if there's anything we might be able to sink our teeth into.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that this resolved itself. He's does not self-identify as Jewish or atheist so neither word is used in infoboxes or categories to describe him and he doesn't find himself on any such lists either.  Case closed.Griswaldo (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now taken a look, and can confirm that this is yet another dispute about how to describe the religiosity or non-religiosity of the Milliband brothers. Now, in the Ed Milliband article, religion is described as "none" in the infobox, plus there are two categories: "British Jews" and "British people of Jewish descent".  All of this may not be 100% precisely accurate, but it seems to be 99.9% adequately sourced, which is good enough for me.  There's no need to split hairs about it.  The only possible problem I see is that two categories about this may be redundant overkill.  Ethnically speaking (which is the only type of Jewishness in question here), how would someone be a "British person of Jewish descent" but not a "British Jew"? I'll investigate that a little bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, "British Jews" is a subcategory of "British people of Jewish descent". Accordingly, only the subcat should be at the bottom of the Ed Milliband article. I'll fix.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, what is the difference? (I have a feeling this may need explanation by three Rabbis, a geneticist, a genealogist, and a passing Nobel laureate just to explain. Why couldn't God have chosen a people less prone to confuse the goyim?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there has been considerable editorial support for leaving the religion field out of the infobox. I for one have flip-flopped on the issue. I want to throw my weight fully behind leaving the religion field out of the infobox. We are considering subject matter that isn't subject to summation in one word. Subject matter of that nature should be handled in the body of the article. Fields in an infobox are up to the task of reporting uncontested and straightforward attributes. The body of an article is much more attuned to finding the wording—probably including more than one quote from Miliband himself—that consensus feels presents an accurate picture of these aspects of the individual. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Faith (or the rejection thereof) isn't something that deserves to be reduced to a single word. (And BTW, I hope nobody takes my remarks above as anything other than a light-hearted attempt by this particular Goy to get his head around a complex subject. I wondered whether to delete it, but hope it is taken in the spirit intended) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All lighthearted comments are automatically construed as lighthearted at BLPN, regardless of practice elsewhere. :-). I've removed the unnecessary parent category from the Milliband article.  As for whether the infobox contains a religion entry, I don't care, whatever consensus says, either way it's no BLP violation, IMHO.  See generally Who_is_a_Jew?.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

An extremely long discussion produced a compromise: use the category "British Jews" (as per the subject's repeated self-identification) together with Religion=none in the infobox, given his repeated declaration that he is Jewish but not religious (i.e., believing or observant). It would be unfortunate to have this issue take off again (and I'm glad to see the mediation request rejected). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity—I think they are different sorts of things—"Categories" and "Infoboxes". One has search functionality and is inconspicuous; the other doesn't have search functionality and is conspicuous. I think that the religion field in the infobox is sufficiently inapplicable to be left out. Bus stop (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a novice - I can't see what place so private a matter as a man's religion has in so public a forum as wikipedia. Ed Milliband is - factual for public consumption as per his public role - but his religion - even his religious heritage - is irrelevant to what is of public use - or should be. There should be no reference to a person's religion in the infobox - but that's only a novice' opinion. I think Ed Milliband would agree with me. Mark Dask 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the religion - none, helps to balance out the Ed Milliband is Jewish claims. Makes it clear so to speak that he is only Jewish from his genetics and was brought up in a secular household and didn't have any of the usual Jewish life attachments, or upbringing, like speaking Jewish or celebrating Jewish festivals or mixing in Jewish circles and such like. No association with Judaism at all. I don't support the compromise as I don't see that Milliband is representative of what people would expect of someone described as a British Jew, but that he is more honestly reported as a British person of Jewish descent. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "speaking Jewish"?? Whatever could you mean?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me - Hebrew language or Yiddish - for example - Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

None oe which should concern us about a living person. Mark Dask 21:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Larger category problem
Upon digging deeper, it looks like there's a fairly clear categorization problem. Category:British Jews is a subcat of Category:British people of Jewish descent. However, Category:Jews is NOT a subcategory of Category:People of Jewish descent So, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this may have arisen because of continuing (sometimes heated) debate amongst the Jewish community itself (loosely defined) as to 'Who is a Jew?', and may indicate that any simple categorisation here is unavoidably drawing Wikipedia into taking sides in the debate. To an extent this will occur in any large ethnicity and/or faith, but it does seem to be exceptionally convoluted in this case. If there is a solution (not involving OR), I cannot foresee it. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * My first impression about the whole thing is that the "Jew by descent" categories should be subcategories of the "Jew" categories, just like the "Jew by religious faith" categories should be subcats of the "Jew" categories. So, for example, in the Miliband article, only the "British people of Jewish descent" category would be used.
 * I have not commented (and am not now commenting) about whether these types of categories should be used at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment about sub cats seems completely correct Anythingyouwant, there is no reason for someone to be in both these cats at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Milliband should not be categorised in respect of his ethnicity/religion. He has said so himself and wikipedia should respect his wish in the matter.  Milliband is politician - end of categories.  Mark  Dask 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence for your statements, then please produce it. This has been discussed to death on the article talk page, and you can find there a number of links to the things that he has actually said about himself (look in the archives), which formed the basis for the approach adopted on this article as noted above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - I think if users look at British Jew and British person of Jewish descent they will agree - in the first the emphasis is on Jew and in the second the emphasis is on British, it is clear that Miliband's life is more reflected in the second than the first. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to fix the cat problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, send in the dogs. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no. I'm just a brave mouse.  All I've done is this, for now (i.e. put "people of Jewish descent" into the category "Jews").  Now I'll see what the reaction is before doing anything else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may well regret that. Brave, yes. Wise, I'm not so sure. Be prepared for a long and confusing debate on whether you are (a) Jewish because your mother was (even if neither of you knew it), (b) Jewish if both parents were, and knew it, or (c) Jewish because you say you are. And they are just the easy cases... AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * I think most everyone agrees that people who are of Jewish descent are --- at least in some sense --- Jews. The more difficult question is what it means exactly to be of Jewish descent, which is a matter of self-identification.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, there's a discussion about this at WikiProject Judaism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, that's hardly the case. There are hundreds of millions of people "of Jewish descent" in the world, but only around 14 million Jews. Not everyone with a Jewish great-grandparent is a Jew; in fact, they're typically not. Jews are generally a sub-set of "people of Jewish descent", not the reverse. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends what is meant by "Jewish descent". Anyway, British Jews are currently being categorized differently from Jews generally, and I hope that gets fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Of Jewish descent" means someone who has Jewish ancestors, of course. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two out of fifty known ancestors?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that the religion field be removed from the BLP infobox at Village Pump/proposals following some of the views expressed above. I hope that helps. Mark Dask 08:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this had been resolved? BLPCAT is pretty clear; there is nothing asserting that his religion is particularly notable to his career or public life, so the categories and the infobox notations will have to go. There really is not other solution here. Someone should remove them ASAP :) --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed ethnic category per WP:BLPCAT and WP:UNDUE. --John (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John, as you know, BLPCAT doesn't apply to ethnicity, and UNDUE is irrelevant. In addition, Miliband has self-identified as Jewish. Please stop making already refuted assertions about policy, it's unhelpful. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that exactly? --John (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does what say what exactly? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved
It has been reverted back in; I'm not going to enter into an edit war but more BLP experts with knowledge of BLPCAT would be useful to enforce policy and explain to the editors what BLPCAT means and how it may be satisfied. --Errant $(chat!)$ 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained to you, but you haven't listened. Miliband has strongly self-identified as Jewish; denying him his self-identity is itself a BLP violation. If you want to actually enforce BLPCAT, go remove the category from the dozens of articles in Category:British Jews where the individuals don't actually meet the requirements. Or go get the category deleted. Either solution would be better than this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why this has become an issue. He's a Jew by any definition. He has said he's a Jew. The secondary sources say he is a Jew. He's a Jew. He's a British Jew, and a Jewish Brit, and a Brit of Jewish ancestry. He is all of these entirely unproblematic things. I personally don't care whether he's in the category, because I think these cats are a bit silly, but I can't see why anyone would go to the bother of removing him either. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim is right. He's a Jewish Jew.  Just like me.  I have brown hair too (what's left of it), but such a category might not be any more helpful than these Jew categories.  BTW, I'm not a member of any organized religion, though I admire many of them.  I'll stop there before I give myself away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "He's a Jew by any definition." Not if the definition is 'a follower of Judaism'. Which is where the problem occurs with categories. They make 'definitive' statements about things that are often themselves ambiguous and/or contested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Grump, but consider this. A person can be "hot" if that person is very attractive, and can also be "hot" if that person is exposed to high temperatures.  To be "hot", one need not be both attractive and craving an air conditioner; either will suffice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should add the category 'hot of not' to infoboxes? Would that be cool? ;-) Actually, I've just thought of an answer. When the playwright Jonathan Miller was asked whether he was a Jew, he replied "No, but I'm Jew-'ish'!". I think Miliband might fit in the same category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Category:Jewish people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BLP says that in cases of doubt we do not include information. The amount of debate this has generated indicates there is reasonable doubt about including the category. We would need a strong consensus to include it. Meantime we may need some uninvolved admins to warn or block those edit-warring against BLP to include it. This is a high-profile article and it needs to err on the side of not including info that may be controversial. --John (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, I think User:Plot Spoiler could do with a rest from editing. Any takers? --John (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the person who has reverted 3 different editors in under 12 hours without a single Talk: page comment is rather more in need of a rest. And that person would be you, John. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When a person says "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am", insisting he's not Jewish is itself a BLP violation. You cannot claim that any and every edit you make regarding a living person is justified under BLP; there must actually be a real controversy over this. And there is absolutely no controversy that Miliband is Jewish. He's stated it himself, and multiple reliable sources have stated it too. We may, in fact, need some uninvolved admins to warn or block those edit-warring against BLP to exclude the category. Artificial "controversies" generated by Wikipedia editors based on personal bias don't actually create "doubts" about this. Find some reliable sources who make make this claim, and then you'll have an actual argument. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your eccentric views on BLP and BLPCAT are already known, thanks. Stating something does not make it so. I stand by my previous position. --John (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're free to stand by your position, of course, but I think you'll find that claiming someone's views are "eccentric" isn't nearly as effective as quoting sources and policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources and policies have been amply quoted from. What we are now talking about its a difference of interpretation of our most important rule. Our system here is that while we are talking about it, it doesn't get to be in the article. --John (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when the person trying to keep it out can't adequately explain how precisely it violates the policy. Yworo (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the onus is on those who wish to add it to demonstrate consensus that it meets our policies, not the converse. On an issue like this we would need a very strong consensus, almost unanimity. We don't have that, therefore it needs to stay out. --John (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John, perhaps I've just missed it, and if so, I apologize, but could you quote the reliable sources that dispute that Miliband is Jewish, and also quote the part of WP:BLPCAT that refers to ethnicity, or excludes people who have self-identified as belonging to a category? Thank you. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem confused as the onus is on you to demonstrate why Miliband's ethnicity is germane to his notability. I agree with this comment as well. --John (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I'm not sure you are actually understanding the issue. No one is disputing that Miliband is Jewish at this stage (or at least of Jewish descent). The issue is the relevance of putting him in a category --Errant $(chat!)$ 09:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, John, the onus is on you to demonstrate how WP:BLPCAT relates to ethnicity. What it actually says is Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Note, there's nothing about ethnicity there. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in the real world. This is a category, what BLPCAT is trying to get across is the idea that the categories should be relevant to his aspect of notability. Lets be clear here; no one is saying he is not of Jewish descent. There is nothing barring such information from the article, but it is not relevant that he is Jewish (citing that this is a cultural thing and not about belief is something of misdirection/lawyering I feel). British Jew is misleading because for the layman (which we assume all wiki readers are) this is a religious category; so BLPCAT applies. So far there has just been vague hand waving "he is Jewish, this may affect his policy..." or "He would be the first Jewish PM since X" - which is all nonsense of course because we are no crystal ball. Some examples of what might be needed? I'd say a) in depth coverage of him being Jewish and how that might affect his policy decisions (no vague hand waving) b) he becomes PM, which would generate plenty of usable RS material or b) he stands by a policy that a RS attributes directly to being Jewish. Lets  To be 100% clear you must find a RS demonstrating that being of Jewish descent is significant to his public life and career. Please provide this.  --Errant $(chat!)$ 09:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in the real world, WP:BLPCAT says nothing whatsoever about ethnicity, so it's irrelevant here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may indeed by relevant with respect to Israel. There are quite a few articles dealing with his Jewishness in relation to his politics regarding Israel, relating the hopes and fears of other Jews with respect to his policies. He has also (last link), issued an official Chanukah message on the Labour Party website.
 * Ed Miliband prefers to avoid Israel (HaAretz)
 * Ed Miliband keeps controversial anti-Israel campaign worker (The Jewish Chronicle)
 * Miliband’s positions on Israel concern UK Jews
 * Ed Miliband's Chanukah message
 * It certainly appears that his Jewishness is a relevant aspect of his notability. Yworo (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Three of those sources are Jewish or Israeli, and the other one is a Labour pitch for the Jewish vote. I'd suggest the sources only show that his Jewishness is notable about among Jews sources. I suspect if I were to look at Polish commentary, it would comment on his Polish background, and if I were to look at Scottish sources they'd comment on his three speeches about Scotland. Sources have their own interests (unsurprisingly), but the fact that a source focuses on its own interests reveals not a lot. Irish sources commented on Obama's distant Irish ancestor - so what? If you want to show his Jewishness as notable, you need to show a prolonged focus by sources that wouldn't otherwise have focused there.--Scott Mac 00:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The same discussion has been going on on the article talk page, and nothing from the mainstream media has been found which indicates that Miliband's notability has in any way been related to his Jewish background. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott is correct. -- JN 466  15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)