Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive101

Gábor J. Székely


This fellow doesn't seem noteworthy enough to me. More importantly he seems to have injected links to his pet theories over a variety of pages on statistics. And some other mysterious user has classified the theory as high-importance.
 * I see nothing unsourced and contentious. Unless I'm missing something, this more like a notability concern or content issue. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

leslie ann jones
Forgive me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that there are only four Grammy Awards for recording engineers: Album of the Year, Record of the Year, Engineering Classical, and Engineering Non-Classical. While Ms. Jones has engineered artists' recordings that have won Grammys( which do not qualify an engineer for a Grammy), it is not clear that she herself has ever received a Grammy. At the very least a citation of an actual Grammy award should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwright230 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I inserted the following footnote: Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first ref in the article, the SFGate one, calls her a grammy-award winner and gives details about what she is alleged to have won. If you have an RS that contradicts that, we've got something actionable to go on.  Until then, nothing to do, really. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Looks like I was looking at a different version than what the OP was looking at--Good find, Anythingyouwant. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I always say, "Anything you want." By the way, what's an "OP"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Original Poster. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maer Roshan
Maer_Roshan Need assistance to edit his page. Seems to be completely laudatory and need assistance with edits please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetemet13 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 December 2010
 * Not sure what the BLP issue is here. I'm sure the language could use tightening, but what specific edits do you have problems with? --Mosmof (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

stephen dale petit
I believe that the birthdate given for this fellow is erroneous....I knew some people that worked with him on the mid 1980's in London when he was most certainly in his twenties ... this period has been conveniently left out and glossed over as has his glam rock days in Los Angeles. I would suggest that a lot of the content is intended to flatter to deceive and it would be nice to see him/them tell the truth ... what's wrong in that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.88.34 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong in a truthful Wikipedia article, except that we have to follow reliable sources even if we think they're wrong. In other words, Wikipedia strives mainly for verifiability rather than truth.  Take Petit's age, for example.  The only reliable source I can find says he was born in 1969, so we have to use 1969 as his birth year even if we think it's wrong.
 * See "Track Of The Day: Stephen Dale Petit", Classic Rock (magazine) (2009-05-20): "40 year old bluesman Stephen Dale Petit is a guitarist, singer and songwriter".
 * As for the rest of the article, it sure could use some work, and you're welcome to help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed lots of puffery from the article today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Benward
Mr. Benward was not a National Merit Scholar or Finalist. There were only two National Merit Finalists from BGA in 1991, and he was not one, nor a Semi-Finalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This unsourced information has now been removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph C. Wilson


I would like some guidance on whether the extensive quoting of (often unsigned) editorials calling the subject names (nobody, liar, etc) is appropriate. On the one hand, I understand its potentially appropriately sourced (Washington Post, New Republic, etc). OTOH, once we start playing this game, there is no end (I am sure I can find a somewhat mainstream source calling the Pope, or Mick Jagger, or Abraham Lincoln an airhead). Second question: I have found what I regard as a WP consensus that WorldNetDaily is not an appropriate Wikipedia source, so would like to delete or shorten an extensive reference to a (since withdrawn anyway) report on the site. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WND is indeed not considered a reliable source and anything relying on it ought to be removed. As for the rest, I would suggest consulting WP:UNDUE as a guideline for editing in relation to negative material like that.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rapid response. I will look at WP:UNDUE. If you will tolerate one more question, which I probably should have asked first: The article had a blank Talk page until I posted, and an archived Talk page a year old. Joe Wilson is the subject of a Hollywood movie currently playing, so its a bit hard to believe that the page has fallen into disuse--I feel like there may have been a Wikipedia decision to lock the page that isn't communicated anywhere. Any enlightenment would be much appreciated before I put a lot of time into this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Allegations are generally fair game for inclusion in a BLP, if they are notable according to reliable sources, and fairly representative of what is said about the subject (i.e. no undue weight). If a reliable source has reported about what WND has said then it might be okay for inclusion.
 * You're the first person to edit that article talk page in more than a year. So, you ought to look at the archived talk page before proceeding with your proposed overhaul.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Florence School
I'm not 100% sure that the section I removed is a BLP violation. See diff But I noticed that an anon had removed it before and had been reverted. I think it deserves a review in any case.

The article is about a historical landmark school, but it is still running as a school. In 2007 a teacher was arrested and convicted (?) of drug possession in the school. Her name was used and there are about 5 apparently reliable links (one broken). There is something about reversing the conviction if re-hab is successful. To me it is against WP:BLP because it is not relevant to the landmark school, and reads like old news now; but if the teacher involved turns herself around the article could haunt her forever. I suppose that somebody whose kids go there might view it somewhat differently. I'll leave it to the experts here, and will answer the inevitable questions, but no arguments will be forthcoming from me. Smallbones (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You were quite right to remove it. The article is only two short paragraphs, so the removed stuff was a case of WP:Undue weight.  If the article were much longer, a brief sentence might have been okay (perhaps not naming the teacher), assuming the teacher was selling drugs to the students rather than using them herself.
 * The school has been around since 1850. Any school that old is bound to have some teachers who have had brushes with the law.  If a person breaks a law, and also happens to be connected with a notable institution, that doesn't usually make that person notable, in my opinion.  Maybe it's different in Omaha (where the school is located).
 * Incidentally, when I remove something like that, I usually leave a very brief sentence or only a footnote, just to innoculate the article, to appease inclusionists, to enable interested people to find out more, and to prevent charges of coverup. But here the article is so short that I think you did the right thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Anderson
I'm just wondering if I could get some eyes on the Kenny Anderson article, particularly the "Personal life" section, which is full of info on ex-wives and divorce settlements and minors. The material is sourced, sort of, although there seems to be lots of confusion over the details. (As an IP pointed out on my talk page, articles like this contradict some of the statements made in the article.)

I'm pretty sure I'm the only regular user who's even occasionally monitoring the page, and I don't have the mettle to take on the issues myself, so any help would be appreciated. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and removed the section for the time being, but here's the previous version of the article. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jason Alexander Personal Life
The following statements listed under "Jason Alexander personal life" are NOT TRUE: He once acted in a dramatic play in Toronto called "Pearson Ole." The play also starred Wu-Tang affiliate F Jady and CGO Shah. Alexander co-wrote the play with filmmaker Nicholas Leone. He is also the uncle and godfather of the Irish born actor Stephen Mullan, who appeared in movies such as She's All That and Tigerland.

Furthermore: Jonathan Penner is his cousin-in-law. Married to Daena Title's cousin Stacy Title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtitle (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced info, and put it at the article talk page for discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Harold Pinter
The version of this article that User:Jezhotwells keeps reverting to has many violations of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:AGF, and faulty understanding of WP:MOS pertaining to how to present long lists of sources with consistency, acceptable formatting of citations, and proper use of quotation marks and proper punctuation of quotations. The reversions damage the reliability of this article. Please view the editing history from December 25, 2008, when these problems began. In the version that I supplied on December 6 to 7, I have tried to correct the previous errors made by Jezhotwells and a small group of others with whom he has been trying to control the editing of this article and to keep others from changing it. The "pruning" that he speaks of resulted in massive damage to sources and many inaccurate statements, which (in his latest reversion) are not factually accurate and are not supported by the sources. Please see the recent "contributions" for this IP address, for more information. The goal is to make this article accurate and to provide accurate sources: core Wikipedia policy requires doing that. The most reliable sources for an article are print-published, third-party, peer reviewed work by experts on the subject. Online sources from newspapers contain errors that one's knowledge of print sources enables one to perceive; without such knowledge and with over-dependence on online news articles, one is not going to be able to provide accurate content and documentation to meet Wikipedia's own core editing policies and style guidelines. The claims of "vandalism" by Jezhotwells are false. The editing history will bear that out. The changes correct errors in both content and documentation. They are provided so that other editors can examine them and work on maintaining the accuracy of this article. Due to frequent requests in editorial interpolated comments by some editors for "page numbers" when online sources are being cited, the links are provided; they are not really necesssary, however, because the information is already provided in the "works cited and further reading list"; however, if one wants such redundancy, it is there. It is important to have the correct source information; if one finds "dead links", please use the Wayback Machine if necessary to update them, or newer URLS. Thank you. --66.66.47.134 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: After Jezhotwells reverted my version of this article, I found a typographical error in a page number; in note 209 (Coppa), I accidentally typed a 2 in front of 45; it should read "Coppa 45." Cannot now correct my version reverted by Jezhotwells to make that change. Provide information for benefit of those editing the article in the future.--66.66.47.134 (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)]


 * The article's not a BLP, Harold Pinter died in 2008. Related discussion at WP:ANI. January   (talk)  12:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Appears from IP's contribs that BLP issues referred to relate to living persons mentioned in the article.  January   (talk)  13:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Sorrentini - neutrality dispute
I encountered this article in what I took to be a non-neutral puff/peacock version. I de-puffed, but most of my changes are being reverted by User:Cirt, to restore it to what I think is a version designed to heap plaudits on this actress. Rather then edit war, can I get some new eyes on this and some input on the talk page. Thanks.--Scott Mac 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd, I was previously unaware that took out time in order to try to make BLPs more negative and remove positive sourced material from them. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was also previously unaware whether or not it is the focus of this BLPN board to target BLPs in order to remove positive material from them and make them more negative by the process. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is for disputes concerning "biographies of living persons". Is Jamie Sorrentini a living person?  Yes.  Are the two of you in a dispute concerning the entry?  Yes.  As to Scott Mac's concerns I agree with them fully.  Given how difficult I've found dealing with these types of concerns in articles you have authored given the ownership issues I will not get in the middle of this situation.  But I do want to express my support for the puffery concerns.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we really going to now take up both the article's talk page and this BLPN page to waste the time of the BLPN board to discuss removing positive material from a BLP? -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need to discuss it here. But unduly positive material does need removed. I depuffed this, but you obviously have ownership issues. Rather than edit-war, I can here to get some neutral people to come and help make this neutral. There's no need for a discussion here,as people are simply invited to come to the talkpage. I simply posted a note, you opened the discussion with some ad hominem remarks about me. I suspect that, in the end, that will prove counter-productive as they tend to show there's an issue here, which I hope will encourage people look further and resist your replacement of obvious puffery.--Scott Mac 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article contains positive material about the subject, yes. But "unduly positive", as asserted by ??? No. It is not "unduly positive". Just sourced and relevant and noteworthy of inclusion in the BLP article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That's our dispute. We need to ask others to look, so we can change our deadlock into consensus. If you can convince a consensus, then I'll withdraw.--Scott Mac 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 As a general observation, I agree with Cirt that removing negative material that is inaccurate or inappropriate often should be a higher priority than removing positive material that's inaccurate or inappropriate. All the same, WP:BLP invites people to report both here, and says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So, removing positive material is often an important BLP matter. Anyway, I haven't looked at the article yet, but will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, this really looks like a NPOV dispute, rather than a BLP dispute. The big difference in my mind is the lack of harm to the subject (or anyone else for that matter) based on the puff piece.  I think the right spot for the article is somewhat more moderate than what Scott Mac took out, but still... BLPN? Really?  Can't we just agree that this is an NPOV dispute about a living person on material that really doesn't pose a risk of harm to the subject? Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the question of whether this matter belongs here, and focussing on the most disputed issue using common sense, I see that the play Parade apparently won a Tony award in 1999 and then subsequently she was a cast member. Is that right?  If so, I personally would not mention the Tony in the lead, given that she contributed nothing to attainment of that award (having it in the body of the article is fine though).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil Dokes
Phil Dokes died on December 7, 1989 in Jacksonville, Arkansas of heart failure at the age of 34. Source is the book Relentless, The Hard-Hitting History of Buffalo Bills Football by Sal Maiorana, page 393. Sal Maiorana writes for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.21.90 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The article is fixed now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Yanofsky
We have a reliable source, The Jewish Tribune (Canada), supporting that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. We have an editor, Yworo, removing that material for reasons he provides here: Talk:Nikki Yanofsky. I don't think the reasons Yworo provides hold up under scrutiny. The Jewish Tribune (Canada) provides us with the following wording:

The title of the article is: "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song".

That article opens with the following wording: "MONTREAL – Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky’s career continues to blossom."

The above reliable source supports quite plainly that Yanofsky is Jewish. I don't know why Yworo is raising any objections. All that I have placed into our article is the following:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. "

The above has been reverted by Yworo and it is hard to fathom what objection Yworo takes to this. I don't think it is the prerogative of an editor to block the inclusion of adequately sourced material. The statement that "Yanofsky is Jewish..." is wholly supported by the source provided, and the source is a reliable source—the source is not deficient in any way. Nor has any other source been brought to light that might cast doubt on the information that we get from the Jewish Tribune (Canada). It seems straightforward to me that the material added is in compliance with all of our policies. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you reading the same article? I did not revert it a second time, it's still in the article. I simply moved and clarified it. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless there are objections I don't know about to the source, it seems Bus stop is right and we should trust that the source has its facts straight. It seems legit The Jewish Tribune (Canada). BE——Critical __Talk 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jewish sources are well-known for including people as Jewish due to ancestry who don't self-identify as Jewish. As an example, The Jewish Daily Forward identifies Andre Geim as Jewish, even though he says he does not self-identify and no other sources except those using the Daily Forward as a source call him Jewish. A Jewish source may be biased, and if the statement must be in the article without a self-identifying source, we should certainly alert the reader to the potential bias. Yworo (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo—you say that Andre Geim "does not self-identify," but nor does he deny being Jewish.


 * Yes, the Jewish Daily Forward says that Geim is Jewish:


 * "As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov."


 * Scientific Computing World says of Geim:


 * "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education."


 * And Springer Science+Business Media publishes a PDF which says, "Geim came from a family of Jewish- German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education."


 * This is not a discussion on Geim but I wish to point out that there are more sources besides the Jewish Daily Forward that allude to Geim as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The weakness of these sources and arguments has been extensively discussed elsewhere. Geim has made statements which implicitly indicate that he does not consider himself Jewish, despite having a great-grandmother who was and a Jewish-sounding name. Yworo (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He has not "made statements which implicitly indicate that he does not consider himself Jewish." This is what you are referring to:


 * "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish."


 * How does the above "implicitly indicate that he does not consider himself Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well in that case, and I do think you're right, it should be take out till a more specific discussion is found in an RS. BE——Critical __Talk 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Joanna Rees - not adhere to notable Living Person
Encourage editors to grade and evaluate the Wikipedia Living Person page of Joanna Rees. Does not appear to adhere to notability guidelines. Investigation of User:Sanfran1276/Joanna Rees points directly to Joanna Rees page, which also falls under conflict of interest guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestarfish88 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What exact problems do you have with this article? I don't see any glaring problems with it. Dayewalker (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help clarify if "notability" is indicated by secondary sources other than Joanna Rees' biographic profiles on her own pages including political web site, her own venture capital firm, and company bio (which Joanna Rees is on the Board of Directors of). Second, please help investigate the user page of Sanfran1276/Joanna Rees as being the same exact content as the Joanna Rees Wikipedia page which, if it does, qualify as conflict of interest. Bluestarfish88 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, she's notable enough for Wikipedia, for instance this article. BE——Critical __Talk 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Rabbi Pinto is a controversial leader who some think is very holy, and others dont, as any article about him cites. As the most basic example, while his current wiki page says he's this huge leader: The Forward article says Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. (http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ) The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442)

Those are their sources. Moreover, he owns a $28.5 Million building which is a historical building, and if the position is thats the organizations and not his, then why discuss the so called charity he did ? Pinto only became famous after a business dispute resulted in a mysterious death. All of the sources mention it - Why not the page.

There is no balance here @all. The page is biased and whitewashed. Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs)
 * - This has been reported to the religious conflicts noticeboard, the neutral point of view noticeboard, several other editors, and is being discussed on the talk page. Netalarm talk 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ephraim Shapiro
This person is no longer living. His article however has a section on his son which is very negative although the person does not really seem to be notable. I'm not sure what WP BLP policies would say about this but it looks bad to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * removed. His son is simply not notable. The question is - is the subject notable?--Scott Mac 10:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that. As I said it's not a concern for BLP. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for deletion last year. I think it's kind of a borderline case. I might try nominating it again with a little different argument. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now nominated: Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro (2nd nomination). Not a living person but still a bad article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Esposito
This is a problematic article, and I have conferred with several administrators about it, and they seem to think that Mr. Esposito is notable enough for an article. I disagree because of sourcing problems and the fact that this article pops up as the first result on yahoo.com and really puts undue attention on a man who is now a private citizen. Check my talk page and the conversations with administrators I have had for the sourcing issues. The main source for the article would be either the Charleston Gazette or the Logan Banner, not the New York Times or the Washington Post. PACER probably has all the info one would need, but it's a password protected government database that is eyes-only and charges money to use. No direct link to it can be made, AFAIK. I have a PACER account, but I'm not about to go on there and get a bill from the Govt.

I propose the following if this information is essential and its availability is more important than a man's reputation in a small town: Change the article to something like 2004 Logan County Election Scandal and make Esposito the bit player that he was.  Danny Wells and Sheriff Mendez were brought down by the sting, in addition to other people I dare not name. I mean, my parents have to live in that town, and to be perfectly frank, people have been shot or jailed for less there. I wash my hands of this, and I will not attempt to provide sources because I obviously don't think the article should exist and I am legitimately afraid of dealing with this any more. Please contact me by email only on this matter. I'm already using an anonymous proxy for my own physical protection, but I fear the repercussions of what I've already done. You don't know what these people can do. PBF1974 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's a pretty dramatic statement, not that I doubt your sincerity one bit. A four-term mayor of Logan, West Virginia certainly deserves a Wikipedia article. What goes in the article is another question.  We mainly prefer secondary sources, not the primary sources that you can get from PACER.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the best way to address your concerns would be to expand the Esposito article to describe his positive accomplishments as mayor. That will make the stuff about paying off the $6500 bar tab much less prominent and noticeable.  Right now, that material may be WP:Undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor KillerChihuahua has now taken appropriate action at the article. I was in process, but had an edit conflict with her.  Anyway, I've got it watchlisted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * See the comments on the article talk page re: references.
 * I question whether a public official convicted of corruption can be considered a private citizen.
 * Logan, West Virginia is so small (<2000 people) that it's unclear Mr. Esposito would be notable otherwise, but I may be wrong.
 * The real notability comes from the FBI's unusual use of Mr. Esposito as a "sting candidate". That's why the national media picked the story up.
 * There may be merit to PBF1974's suggestion we switch to an article about the investigation, rather than Mr. Esposito.
 * I think we definitely need a verifiable, neutral article on this topic.
 * Logan County, West Virginia is a famously tough place; I don't think PBF1974's personal concerns are unfounded.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote the following article: 2004 Logan County, W.Va. Political Scandal and redirected Thomas Esposito to that article, since his article had only one sentence. I'm not trying to hide info on Mr. Esposito, it's just that there isn't enough info on him that's positive, and what made him famous is the scandal.  I put a link to the article on the Logan County page.  Now I pray that I don't get a visit from the police or get shot.  I'm trying to be brave about this.  You may be wondering how I could be identified.  The black fact is that I'm the only person in this area able and willing to intelligently write on this area. PBF1974 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like this particular matter is taken care of now (I haven't read through the whole article but at least it's no longer similar to an attack article on one person).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernhard Frank
A former SS officer who wrote a book on his experiences. He has recently been the target of a series of interviews in which he is said to have implicated himself in the massacre of Jews, along with spectacular claims that he might have committed the opening act of The Holocaust. I've removed the entire "Gould's Investigation" section, which was unreferenced and which contained extensive unattributed quotes. While references may no doubt be available, such claims must be properly referenced from the beginning and placed into context, particularly since the biographer, Mark Gould, has filed a lawsuit against Frank. In coverage by the New York Times and The Telegraph, the emphasis is less on Frank and more on Gould, as evidenced by the titles Nazi Is Exposed, but Did He Have Anything to Hide? and Another day, another tall 'Last Nazi' story, which calls the claim "pure junk."  Acroterion  (talk)  16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If your removals are contested, please let us know. You might want to remove some stuff to the article talk page instead of completely deleting it.  Is there anything else we can do for you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg_Davis_(American_football)
There is a statement regarding the person seeing visions and that their children had a disease, which is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Davis_%28American_football%29&action=historysubmit&diff=401178751&oldid=401119443 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.179.208.36 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverted and warned. Is it just me or does it seem like we are getting more people who register an account, make one test, unsourced and/or vandalizing edit and then never use that account again? MarnetteD | Talk 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert V. Willison
There are users who are constantly posting false and defamatory information to this page. As soon as it is removed, it is re-posted. This may be an attempt to manipulate the stock price of a company called GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd., which is referenced in the postings. The information is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliptis (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On the three pages involved here, the user Eliptis and the other involved user have been reverting each other back and forth for a couple of hours. Both are well over WP:3RR.  Instead of blocking I have given both 3RR warnings and protected all three pages for 6 hours to try to get some dialog going somewhere instead of all the reverting.  I'm not going to be able to monitor the situation as closely as it may need monitoring over the next few hours, so any other admin is welcome to take different actions in this without consulting with me first.
 * As to the specifics of this BLP notice and the one right below, it is likely that some additional eyes will be useful. As a first step, if Eliptis could please lay out *exactly* what he is considering to be false in the three effected articles, instead of just blanket reverting, maybe we would have a starting point for a discussion towards a useful solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would point out that an eye needs to be kept on Gerova as well, just in case info about these people shows up there as well. The Eskimo (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This one, at least, is now A7 deleted. The other BLP page (listed below) and the company at the center of this dispute, are both still around.  The page protection on the two pages will expire in a couple of hours. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jason Galanis
Users appear to be involved in a campaign of defamation against GEROVA Financial Group using Wikipedia. This is one of the pages on which they are posting false and defamatory information. As soon as the defamatory information is removed it is re-posted within a few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliptis (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See also a related thread at WP:ANI. -- Jayron  32  19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at this, and discussing the content on Talk:GEROVA Financial Group. The information on Gerova is indeed defamatory, but most of it appears to be true. There are solid cites to Forbes and other reliable sources.  The articles about the individuals need more scrutiny.  Robert V. Willison probably doesn't meet the threshold for notability, but the Galanis family (father and son) have been covered extensively in the press. The father did Federal prison time between 1973 and 1998, so there's valid information available from reliable sources. We need some other editors on this. There's information to be dug up and properly cited.  On the the other side, the blind page blanking has to stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jack Mcclellan
New article; severe concerns about negative info without true reliable sources, etc. Youtube and a wiki as refs.  Chzz  ► 22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it's bad, but he is notable. BE——Critical __Talk 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits and took out some POV language and bad sources. It should be able to go from there. BE——Critical __Talk 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated this one for Speedy under G10. The original article was, honestly, irredeemable. If he's notable, better to write an article from scratch. Ray Talk 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
Akerbeltz is continuously deleting a clear reference showing that Arnaiz-Villena  results on Macedonians have been repeated by independent laboratories. A part of the biography (Litigations) is outdated,but the people who knows about this have been blocked (Arnaiz1,Virginal6)permanently .Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami and Trigaranus have managed to conjointly and without any objective reason to do it. In addition,Akerbeltz is threatening to Symbio04 to be blocked unless he permits removing a factual scientific magazine reference, which Akerbeltz dislikes:he is reverting it and threatening Symbio04Symbio04 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a note at the article talk page alerting the other editors about this BLPN discussion, and asking them not to delete reliable references without explaining a good reason. Symbio04, if anyone is "threatening" you, please provide a diff (i.e. a link showing exactly where that's happening).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 were blocked as sockpuppets. Symbio04 is taken by regular editors of the page to be one and the same. This is not a BLP issue. It's an issue about whether one scientific study supports the findings of another scientific study. I actually don't follow the objections to the inclusion of this citation made on the talk page, but the best solution would be to get input from a relevant wikiproject, since regular editors only have access to the article abstract not the full text. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul Barlow, this specific issue has nothing to do with BLP and shouldn't be debated here. But to answer your questions Anythingyouwant, the objection is that in the abstract of an article a reference is made to "other research that proven point X". That's not a good ref for the specific fact Symbio is trying to add so if he has access to that article, he should refer to that "other research" which supports his claim. It would also help if he ran a spelling and grammar check over his edits, I admit to getting curt with him as I'm so tired of mopping up after this persons unnecessarily careless edits. It's discourteous to say the least to rely on other editors to regularly do your spellchecking. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are ways to deal with suspected sockpuppets, and that includes more than just assuming they're guilty and deleting their edits automatically. See Sockpuppet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding a reliable article abstract referring to other research, I think the burden is on you guys to refute it if you want to. Just because you'd have to pay money or go to a library is no reason to exclude a reliable source.  Free online sources are preferable, but not necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what you are saying here. The debate is about the way the source is being interpreted: whether it can be stated that it supports the research of A A-V and his colleagues. Its reliability as a legitimate source is not in doubt. Having the whole article and input from expert editors would help to clarify the question. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mayhap you should look at the edit? Symbio added the following: The same results than Arnaiz-Villena (showing that Greeks are related to Sub-Saharans)have been obtained in a work published on Berber and other Mediterraneans genetics (2010) . I never dismiss anything out of hand but as a ref for the "fact" he's adding, that is not a good enough source especially since the topic is controversial. THAT is what I objected to. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC) To clarify, I'm not doubting the validity of the publication. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait and see if Symbio responds here, but my first impression is that you ought to keep the reference but modify the interpretation. This article is a BLP, and the reference seems pertinent to whether the subject is right or wrong about something, so it may be a legitimate BLP issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually looked in the ref? The only thing that relates to Symbio's point is this The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers. No further source is stated. Given the controversy of that section and most things AAV has done and will do, it's not good enough. It's also repetitive I suspect, the opening of that section cites Hajjej et al, making the same point. So what's actually new about this edit? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you need a further source for that statement? You say that the reliability of the source as legitimate  is not in doubt.  Moreover, if you get the full text, it will provide details.  My advice is, put the controversial sentence in quotes in a footnote, and you can also say in the article that the quote is ambiguous if you really think it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because as it stands, we can't even be sure if this is not quoting the same source twice? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that the "other studies" mentioned by Hajjej may be research by Arnaiz, that's possible. But the Hajjej abstract that Symbio wants to cite does not only rely on other studies: "This study indicates a higher proportion of Iberian than Arab ancestry in Tunisian Berbers, which is of value in evaluating the evolutionary history of present-day Tunisians. Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans".  That idea is already contained in this BLP ("The Arnaiz-Villena study was confirmed with the same HLA (Chromosome 6) markers by Hajjej et al."), but maybe it wouldn't hurt to add an extra footnote to that sentence.  Anyway, Symbio should clarify what the article says after the abstract, and whether it refers back to the research of Arnaiz who is the subject of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to waiting? Great, we know have a sentence that reads ...was confirmed with the same HLA (Chromosome 6) markers by Hajjej et al ... See also Hajjej et al. That REALLY improved things. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the heck is wrong with having two footnotes to Hajjej instead of one? I merely added one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Article A makes assertion A1. Fine. Article B mentions that article A makes assertion A1. Also fine. If you report assertion A1 and use Article A and Article B as a reference, you're cheating because they're based on the same piece of research. That's what's wrong. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 I believe you are misreading the source. It says (emphasis added): "This study indicates a higher proportion of Iberian than Arab ancestry in Tunisian Berbers, which is of value in evaluating the evolutionary history of present-day Tunisians. Greeks seem to share genetic HLA features (Chr 6) with Sub-Saharans. The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers." The last sentence pertains to confirmation of what is in this study.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry?? it says "The relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharans has been confirmed by other studies based on chromosome 7 genetic markers." This is all in the Greek and Macedonians section, remember? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To "confirm" something in another article means to verify what is in this article. I am very puzzled by your stance here.  All I did was add a footnote without changing the text of the article at all.  Are you really asserting that the footnote I added (including a quote) is not relevant to the sentence it is appended to?  We're merely trying to point readers to relevant resources here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. What that quote above says is "we've done a study and showed that Tunisian Berbers are closer to Iberians than Arabs. Looks like (seem to) Greeks share features with Sub-Saharans. Other people have already proven that Greeks are linked to Sub-Saharans, so we're going to accept that as true". That's how I read it and I really don't see how you can read that as "We're not only showing that Tunisian Berbers are Iberians but also that Greeks are Sub-Saharans". Akerbeltz (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, the numbers indicate that you're mistaken. The other studies involve chromosome 7. This study involves chromosome 6.  In any event, what's the harm in enabling readers to take a peek at the abstract for themselves?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Most people don't read that far. Anyway, you're still wrong. The PubMed article says that Greeks and Macedonians seem to share markers on Chr 6. The confirmation is based on Chr 7. You cannot therefore use stuff based on Chr 6 to ref a sentence that states that as a fact. 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, even if a reader doesn't click on the link to the abstract, they can see that the author is again Hajjej. The abstract's discussion of chromosome 6 buttresses the subject of this BLP, that discussion is not apparent in any other footnote, so for the sake of world peace I hope you will allow the new footnote to remain.  :-). Now I must bid you all adieu, to go play tennis.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald   http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi
Number five in Google search engine's list of articles on this individual. The Wikipedia article on Greenwald itself does not list these last two claims. Appears to have been hacked

"Glenn Greenwald (born 6 March 1967) is a US lawyer, columnist, blogger, author, Marxist, and Anti-Semite.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.98.151 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From looking at the article history, this was rapidly-removed vandalism from some days ago. Scroogle seems to have picked up the vandalism, and not updated it's mirror copy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Glaser (poet)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I do not know how to properly use this page. There is a grievance I'd like to report on the Michael Glaser (poet) page, where under the "Recent Controversies" heading, the article purports to have "documented evidence" of slander, then links to a highly partisan (i.e., misleading) website as "proof."

I'm not saying whether the information presented is right or wrong, but it is worded very accusingly. Such a loaded statement should at least be presented objectively and come from a more repudiable source. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.58.170 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wording isn't borne out by the source. I've deleted it for now, though it may get reinserted with more neutral wording if other sources confirm the story. Thank's for your help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found another source which seems a little more objective here, but it seems a fairly minor issue to me. A bit of political name-calling that nobody will be able to independently verify anyway. Not really biography material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tapulous
Anon appears to keep trying to paint a false controversy about some comments the head of this organization made. The only thing factual is that the person made the comments, the implication of adding it to an encyclopedia article is that the comments made were historically significant and a controversy was arisen. The author refuses to provide any other source that a controversy exists, but continues to add this material as a main section in the article about the organization. Brian Reading (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I can't figure out is what real relevance it has to the article. I'm guessing this guy wasn't hired. BE——Critical __Talk 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stefano Muscovi
Early life

Stefano Muscovi was born in Trieste, Italy.


 * The article currently says he was born in Trieste. However, the article has no references, and was therefore put up for deletion on December 6.  So, let's wait and see the result of AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mordechai_Vanunu
The section on "Negev Nuclear Research Center" has biographical information that violates the biographies of living persons policy An example is:

It is believed that at Dimona, Vanunu became increasingly troubled about the Israeli nuclear weapons programme on which he worked and possible Israeli nuclear strategies in the event of war. When he was laid off from Dimona in 1985, Vanunu left Israel. He arrived in Nepal and considered a conversion to Buddhism, later travelling to Burma and Thailand. In 1986, he travelled to Sydney, Australia. While there, Vanunu lived in a hostel in Kings Cross and worked in odd jobs, first as a hotel dishwasher and later as a taxi driver.

1. The statement "It is belived that..." speaks for itself.

2. The blurb about "and considered a conversion to Buddhism" is not cited. It also and casts doubt on the gentlemen's religious convictions. Being a convert from Judaism to Christianity who is so controversial, this paints him as being fickle with his religious beleifs. I admit this is speculation on my part, but, this is a proper forum for speculation and review.

The information quoted above assuredly should NOT be included in a Wikipedia article in its current form without proper citation.Wikihelper242 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've appropriately removed the stuff to the article talk page. Let us know if there are any further problems.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Guy Dollé
Previously unsourced BLP which came up when I pressed the big red button. Since the content's on the negative side, I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether the sources I came up with are solid enough. January  (talk)  12:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a lot to the article, really. AfD? (and don't look at the talk page if you have a weak stomach). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That stuff on the talk page was in the article for two weeks in 2007. It even got copyedited!
 * I think he's probably notable although I don't like the article being that short as there's virtually nothing there other than the controversy. There's a better-developed article on the French Wikipedia, although unfortunately unsourced so I can't use anything from it. January   (talk)  21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Udhay Nadar
Udhay Nadar hails from Sethu Nagar village in the former Ramanathapuram District of TamilNadu, India and was born in the Nadar community to Ganesan Nadar and his wife in 1982. Udhay Nadar,is an Indian entrepreneur, Business magnetic, educationalist, bridge player, one of India’s leading business man and the Chairman and Chief Officer of Pooma Technologies. Udhay Nadar founded Icon Tech Machinery in the mid-2005s and transformed the IT Outsourcing company into an IT Enterprise over the next three decades by constantly reinventing his company’s focus. He is the Chairman and Managing Director of Udhay Groups of companies, which is the most profitable all kind of machinery, importer to India. he acquired pooma technologies which is the most profitable Outsourcing in India. While his Machinery, electronics peripherals and Gupvy Constructions are primarliy concentrated in India,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udhaynadar (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As there isn't currently an article on Udhay Nadar, I assume you are trying to propose one however this not the right place to do it. Please see WP:Your first article for information about this; also as you appear to be writing about yourself please see WP:Autobiography. January   (talk)  16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

David Alexander (author)
This is a vanity puff piece. Footnotes and references are false. Honors claimed cannot be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.12.91 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, doesn't seem to be a single source establishing his WP:NOTABILITY BE——Critical __Talk 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The appropriate venue to discuss this may be WP:AFD. -- Jayron  32  19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, contributors to the page appear to be several socks of someone who is probably the person himself. Just guessing of course. BE——Critical __Talk 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, AFD is an even better venue. Nothing sends the message better than unanimous consensus to delete!  -- Jayron  32  20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see question below, maybe you can answer it. BE——Critical __Talk 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I first checked if had any actual published books on WorldCat. His non-fiction work, The Building of the Pentagon ISBN 9780760320877, is in 118 Worldcat libraries. That's enough to prevent a A7 as no plausible claim to importance.  It's impossible to tell if the stories are notable without checking for published reviews. (The blurbs in the article are not RSs, no matter who said them). The article is highly promotional, but if the published works were important, the rest but be edited very quickly, so it isn't G11. And in fact, Hrafn, a very highly experienced editor, probably after seeing it here,  seems to be currently taking the trouble to go through it in detail for sourcing--which is more than I would have done; and if he thinks it inadequate, as he probably will, he will not be at all hesitant to nominate for AfD.  What he's doing is the  highest standard for dealing with such articles.  DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, it was deleted previously Articles for deletion/David Alexander (author), mainly due to DGG's comments.--Scott Mac 16:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 17:05, 10 December 2010 user:Orangemike deleted "David Alexander (author)" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) - Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
What do you do about articles like this? I mean, in my opinion they should be deleted till sourced. They shouldn't be put up till they are sourced, or given a grace period of a week or so. That one has been up since October 2005. But when the person might be notable, as in this case, you have to go through some debate. It makes cleaning these things up so hard, and I come across them so often that I know Wikipedia is just littered with articles without notability or without sources. Something should be done. I'm sure it's been discussed before, so could someone at least point me to the discussion, or else tell me what to do? BE——Critical __Talk 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, where the subject is clearly notable and easy to source, you source it. For more recent BLPs, WP:BLPPROD may be appropriate if you can't find sources. Ray  Talk 01:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. That doesn't make sense because letting a BLP sit there unsourced for 5 years seems wrong.  But obviously that's the system.  Thanks. BE——Critical __Talk 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't want to go there. There was a massive Wikidramafest about this about a year ago. For now, just source the ones you think are worth it, and propose for deletion the ones that aren't. Ray  Talk 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just proposed it for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and I just de-prodded it. Politicians who have held sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * by the time the prod was put on, there was an excellent source in the EL, so the prod was not justified at an earlier state, for something like this, the proper course is just to find and add the source. If we just delete, we're removing material that could be fixed very quickly and be the basis of a respectable article. The question is whether it was even right to add the unsourced tag in the first place when sourcing is as trivial as this. Myself, I would not add the tag if I could source in less that a few minutes,    DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG here, you should not add a unsourced template without at least doing a google search and looking for one, if one is clearly there then its just as easy to add as the uncited template. I know that these house of representative guys are considered notable even if they really are not and there is nothing to really write about them in independent sources, I don't much agree with that position as after five years the article is almost no life story at all and a link to the representative page would be just as informative. At least it wasn't full of vandal additions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Stengel
✅

The biographical article about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel is half-underwhelming, half BLP-problem. The first half is an mediocre career summary lacking in references. The second half is a disaster zone, having drawn the attention of those wishing to inflate recent, minor Time controversies into career milestones. If they belong anywhere, it's the article about the magazine, but I'm not certain they belong there, either. Few others have gotten involved, other than to add a collection of tags. Since the last flare-up in September, there have been just about a half-dozen edits on the entire article.

I have taken it upon myself to prepare a well-researched, carefully cited, restructured and ultimately much more informative alternate draft, currently available in my user subspace here: User:WWB_Too/Richard_Stengel.

It retains significant material from the first half, expands on it and adds quality third-party references. Among the current "Controversies" section I've retained just the part about the Iwo Jima cover, although I defer to other editors' judgment here. The main reason here is that I happen to work with Time Inc., and so I have a possible conflict to manage. Anyhow, I hope you'll agree that the current article falls short of Wikipedia's standards, and that my draft represents a significant improvement. Happy to discuss more here or on the Talk page there, where I've addressed these same issues. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - added, looks much better, mostly the controversy was totally tangential, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for reviewing the draft and moving it over. Much appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions in bios
The following thoughts were inspired by editing Joseph_C._Wilson. The article contains statements sourced to mainstream media that the subject is "pompous", a "nobody", a "blow hard", etc. If evenly balanced ("a hero! a goat!") I know this does not necessarily violate WP:Weight, WP:Undue etc. However, I would like to suggest a standard for deleting  epithets which otherwise don't offend WP:RS or weight standsrds: Are they vague and therefore potentially universal? For example, everyone is a nobody until they are somebody, so quoting an assertion that Joe Wilson is a "nobody" doesn't really enlighten very much. The same assertion could be made about every public figure. For a thought experiment, try a Google search on "The Pope is an idiot". You will find some highly colorful, entertaining results that do not appear in the Wikipedia bio of Pope Benedict XV and would presumably be rapidly deleted if added. If you apply the rule I just suggested, "idiot" is vague and universal and could be applied to anyone, so does not belong in a bio.

Please excuse me if this has already been hashed out; I am fairly new here and haven't yet found anything similar in my searches. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * meaningless material should no be included in any Wikipedia article, sourced or otherwise, BLP or not BLP.  DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone repeat after me. Make it your mantra.  "Appearing in a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition to include something in an article".  Wikipedia articles are designed to be well written, and that means making editorial decisions about which information to include, and which to exclude.  Everything the in the article needs to be connected to a reliable source, but the converse is NOT TRUE.  Appearing in a reliable source does not mean that it must be included.  -- Jayron  32  17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Usman Saleem Butt
Usman Saleem Butt is Studying in Pac For Chartered Accountancy(CA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiveshines (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. -- Jayron  32  17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave Hall (record producer)
Quick one. This edit added 'lesbian' to Wanda Sykes ("Dave Hall was married to lesbian Wanda Sykes from 1991 to 1998"). It's well known that WS is a lesbian, but do we use that descriptor any time she comes up, or is this context different because it involves her prior marriage? In short, how should this one be handled, and is there a policy that already addresses it? Maybe, Dave Hall was married to Wanda Sykes from 1991 to 1998, before she came out as a lesbian or just Dave Hall was married to Wanda Sykes from 1991 to 1998, period. Ocaasi (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No that needs removing, awful. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain. She is a public advocate for GLBT issues, so it's not mean or anything.  What's the policy on this--don't mention unless necessary?  Could it be helpful here, since people might know that she is a lesbian but be confused by her prior marriage? Ocaasi (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording as it is gives the impression of trying to make some point or other (maybe that Sykes is not really a lesbian or that the marriage is somehow doubtful), regardless whether that's intentional or not. I'd say your proposed alternative is better. Then again, I have no idea who either of these people are, so maybe there's more to it than I realise. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's no backstory. She was married.  She's not anymore.  She's an openly gay comedian.  Just not sure how to phrase it here.  I'll take it out, since it's not really relevant to Dave Hall either way. Ocaasi (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats the point Ocassi, the fact that he married her is the point, her later sexual preference is irrelevant and people are people they are not gay john harrison or lesbian jane Pritchard, we don't identify people by their sexual preference. I removed it a few mins ago. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rob. It's a very short article, so this is undue weight. If the article were longer, then it might be discussed in context (e.g. did he realize when they got married what her orientation was).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since I don't know who they are, I suppose I have to say "whatever". I'd object to it being removed purely on the grounds that we shouldn't be including that sort of sordid detail, though. I'm not sure how we determine whether it's relevant to Dave Hall. I'm sure he found it relevant at the time. Is it relevant that they were ever married in the first place? I guess I'm saying WP:PRESERVE unless there's a good reason not to. --FormerIP (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need or benefit in including her sexual orientation as a descriptor and I agree with Off2Rio Rob's removal. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea,, we are not hiding it, if it was a notable part of their marriage then in context we could add something watching out for undue weight in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Strouse
Charles Strouse was reported to have died on December 9, 2010... That is false... He has not passed away... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.141.203 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed this, as unsourced. I'd have though his death would have been reported in the media, given his fame, but I can't find any references, so I think we can assume he's alive until evidence to the contrary is given. Thanks for the input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

johm turner, american footballer
john turner listed as an alumnus of Miami Norland High School is wrong. that guy is an english soccer player of the same name. the norland guy attended the univeristy of miami, i thnk and later played for the minnesota vikings.

also, another notable alum is the old, ugly german lady from the austin powers movies. she is a character actor is other moviea and tv shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBillRedBird (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the article Miami Norland High School, I changed John Turner (footballer born 1954) to John Turner (American football). I'm not 100% sure that that's what BigBillRedBird had in mind.  Maybe 92.346%. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Brandi Hawbaker
Tonight, a new account came to Brandi Hawbaker as, and added more detail about her life and death. It's all unsourced however, and the account of her death not only leaves out some sourced information, but also seems to put some of the blame for her death on some relatives (which is why I'm bringing it here to BLP, rather than at COI). I'm headed to bed, but would someone more familiar with BLP please help this woman to the right place and policy. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the last edit and tried to explain at User talk:BrandiRose's Mom. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Farrah Sarafa
Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon browsing the directory of Palestine-related biographies, I happened upon the biography of a person named Farrah Sarafa. I'd never heard of this person before, and the biography claims that she is a poet or author of some sort with apparent recognition. However, upon searching for her on the Internet for more information and additional sources to bulk up the biography, it looks as though she is not a well-known person at all, and not worthy of a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, it seems as though the page was written by Farrah Sarafa herself, which isn't acceptable. I suggest that this biography should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.219.42 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed the lack of notability, proposed the article for deletion, placed a welcome message at the talk page of the IP who reported this here, and left a message for the user who created the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kors
These two sentences startled me:

Kors left Celine in October 2003 to concentrate on his own brand, however, Brad and Zeenat stayed and now make six times what Kors makes. Kors launched his menswear line in 2002, which failed miserably without the help of his two former business partners. Brad and Zeenat also own all the diamonds in the world.

Has this article been vandalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.128.38 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked the article & you're right, it had been vandalized but the invalid additions have been reverted. Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Newton
Cameron Newton's father did not play professional football for the Dallas Cowboys. I corrected the error on his brother's page, where it stated that Cecil Newton Sr. played for the New Orleans Saints (he did not play professional football) but cannot correct Cameron's page because it is protected. Neither the Dallas Cowboys roster nor the New Orleans Saints roster (on Wikipedia) list a Cecil Newton as ever having been on either team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldeagl (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I removed that sentence, and mentioned the matter at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology-related BLP issues
I have added a section to an ANI thread that dealt with use of a contested source to point out some BLP issues that were introduced by the removal of this source. See here. I expect that more will follow. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments at ANI have not brought about any changes to the articles listed above (except one ill-considered AfD), so I will be listing articles with Scientology-related BLP issues individually. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please recommend specific changes at the respective article talk pages, and they will be happily addressed promptly. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
A while back I created an article, Murder of Aristotelis Goumas, which was deleted by an administrator for BLP violations. Following an inconclusive deletion review, the content was e-mailed back to me, and after a discussion with an administrator, I understood that it would be ok for me to bring the article back provided I addressed the BLP issues and userified it first. I believe I have addressed the BLP issues, and have userified the article here, however, since I still unfamiliar with BLP issues and am very wary of the BLP minefield in general, I would be much obliged if someone with experience with BLP issues could go over the userified version and let me know if it's OK, or if there are still some BLP issues outstanding. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the repeated use of words like "allegedly" and "reportedly". This makes it sound like POV rather than fact. If those matters have not been proven they should not be reported here, or at least the person(s) making the allegations needs to be stated. Coming to this topic for the first time, I perceive a degree of bias in the article. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article, if you are looking for a general review, my feeling is if I saw this, it would end up at WP:AFD pretty quickly for WP:NOTNEWS reasons. Generally, many events can be found to have been covered by news outlets, and when I am looking for an event which has the sort of long-ranging encylopedic importance, what is generally needed is depth of time and place.  That is, the event needs to be covered by sources which aren't local to the area where the event occured, AND the event needs to be covered by sources which are published some time after the event.  Crimes are committed all the time, but until they become international in scope of coverage, AND so notable that people are writing about them long after the "news cycle" has died down, they probably don't get past WP:NOTNEWS.  So far, every reference in the article is to news articles published by papers local to the event, and covering events essentially immediately after they happened.  I just don't see where this event, as tragic as it may have been, yet qualifies for an encyclopedia article.  -- Jayron  32  00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that maybe this article is perhaps a little more significant than Jayron sees it, at least in terms of its political impact. It does seem (from the article at least), to have attracted more than local attention, and instead been commented on by both Albanian and Greek politicians of some stature. There are probably still POV problems, but I'd not dismiss it out of hand as lacking significance (least of all considering some of the crap one can find on Wikipedia, but that is another issue). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The incident and the person seems to have had some significance if you google it. I don't have a really good source, but     BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 08:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. While notability may be debatable, that can be decided later. The main issue for now is the BLP. WWGB mentioned that the words "allegedly" and "reportedly" are used too often, and that is something I can address fairly quickly. What I would like to know is if people see any other BLP problems in the current version. If not, then I can go ahead and restore the article, and the discussion about notability can continue in another venue. Athenean (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed some of the excessive instances of "allegedly" and "reportedly". Can someone tell my if it's ok? Athenean (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen
Attempts are being made to link this person to the death of a relative, the article seem to have been created with that intention. Later more information has been added, to show wiki-notability as an author. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen which I just started. No way this is a valid article, for all the reasons you cite.  -- Jayron  32  17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And while we're at it Ellen Ugland (the deceased relative) looks like a prime case for AfD too. The 'article' currently basically says 'She had piles of money, and now she's dead'. Of course, she may warrant an article if someone can make a case for her notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Russ Vandeveerdonk
Living Persons must have verifyable sources? Then is not media and newspaper articles, about a living person verifyable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussJFK (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor is referring to an article on himself, which was speedily deleted. Russ, no autobiographies, please.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Doven - Scientology overload
Michael Doven is apparently a film producer, but his bio is laden with unnecessary detail about his connection to the Church of Scientology. See also here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DC, I don't see you making any attempt to address any concerns you might have on the article talk page. That should be your first port of call.  Coming here instead for "help", particularly when there is an on-going ANI discussion, seems to border on disruption, in my view.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bringing a BLP issue to the BLP noticeboard is now considered disruption? The talk page of any given article is likely only to draw the attention of people who have watchlisted that article. In many cases, uninvolved editors are far better judges of the problems. In this particular case, the article has almost solely been edited by a single person. If you have read the ANI discussion, it should be clear why I would bring my concerns here rather than to the talk page. I would appreciate it if you could look at the article for BLP issues, rather than commenting on my actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only have you not addressed any concerns you have on the Doven Talk page, you have not made any edits to the article. In other words, you've simply come here asking us to agree with your criticism of the article. If you believe the article needs improvement, edit it. If you encounter opposition to your edits, take it to Talk. If after exhausting those avenues, you still need help, then you can take it here or to EAR or to some other appropriate forum. Defensively anticipating that you will be stymied by the article creator (Cirt) presents no real issue to be resolved because it hasn't happened - you just say it will happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said in the ANI thread, I am not editing any articles related to Scientology lest people misunderstand my intentions in that thread. I have neither expressed nor implied that I expect Cirt to object to any changes. I would be greatly surprised if they did at this point. I am no stranger to this noticeboard and I have never had valid concerns met with responses like these. I would hope that someone can see past this nonsense and address the issue with this BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, you don't want to edit articles related to Scientology because people might misunderstand your motives, but, on the other hand, you are willing to come here and raise the same concerns your edits would raise. Even putting aside the apparent dissonance in those two behaviors, I still don't see why you can't first raise these concerns on Doven's Talk page.


 * All that said, and not wanting to appear unreasonable, having read the article (and edited it a bit for form more than for substance), it's an odd article. It's not clear, at least to me, whether Doven is notable for his work or for his association with Scientology because the two often appear to be intertwined through the Cruise connection. That intertwining makes it hard to organize. In another article, you could put his work in one section of the article and his Scientology connection (if it's notable enough) in another section. Frankly, I had trouble seeing a clear path to doing that with Doven. Perhaps other editors can come up with a creative solution that has eluded me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any edits I might make to Scientology-related articles at this point will be used to distract from the larger and far more important issue being raised at ANI. That does not mean that my concerns about specific articles are invalid, nor does it mean that I should not raise them here for other editors to assess. Thank you for looking at it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous un-indent. I've taken a look at the article and while I agree with Bbb23 that his career is particularly entwined with Scientology. However, I think the article reads as if it goes out of the way to use the word as often as possible...
 * Intro, 2nd paragraph - "Doven was the personal assistant to actor and Scientologist Tom Cruise." Mention of Scientology here seems to add nothing, it's only there to point out Cruise's religion.
 * "According to the Church of Scientology publication Source, Doven had reached the Operating Thetan level of OT VI within Scientology in 1991." would read better as According to the Church of Scientology publication Source, Doven had reached the Operating Thetan level of OT VI in 1991.
 * "Doven also functioned as a representative of the Church of Scientology, reporting directly to Scientology leader David Miscavige.'" would be better as 'Doven also functioned as a representative of the Church of Scientology, reporting directly to its leader David Miscavige.

An initial scan doesn't convince me that any references to Scientology should be removed, but it's probably worth reducing the ratio of the word to all other words in the article. I would have a go myself, but I think the result would be too many uses of the word cult in the article. --GraemeL (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since my earlier comment, I've thought of a way of segregating his Scientology connections from his work and reorganized the article. I'm curious what other editors think of the reorg.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no one has commented on the changes I made. Cirt, however, reverted them, so I guess that means he didn't like them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to even attempt to engage in discussion at the article's talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not have the discussion here, where there is already a discussion in progress? Your edits thus far haven't addressed my concerns that the article is far too laden with Scientology references for someone described in the lede as a producer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I agree that all of this should have been raised on the Talk page, and I have been responding to your comments on the Talk page. However, it is now here as well, and it would be nice if some of the editors who participated here would respond to various concerns on the Talk page. In that way, the discussion here could be ended without losing any of the issues raised.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * actually he is also described as a scientologists in the lede, and both descriptions of producer and scientologist are backed up with reliable sources. if you aren't gaming the system, why did you bring these conserns up here rather than on a page you have never edited or participated on the talk page.  As you stated you are listing BLP violations on this page because the problems were not solved on the ANI but you used the ANI to "back up my allegations of Cirt's anti-Scientology agenda" a statement you restate on your own talkpage.  I am unimpressed with your appeals that this is a content dispute, since you have not brought the content concerns on any other format, and the content concerns you bring up on the ANI are exclusively to discredit Cirt, the editor who originally called you on using an inappropriate source on a BLP and who you preceded to edit war with until the ANI at which point you suddenly agreed that the source was inappropriate but that the now opened ANI should be used as a forum to discuss Cirt's editing habits...and when that didn't go well for you suddenly we are opening up BLP noticeboard discussions.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Coffeepusher, I probably won't be responding to any of your provocation, so it would be considerate of you to stop posting it here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * how would it be considerate? "I will offer no defense against the following allegations so I would appreciate it if everyone would stop talking about it".  You should have checked yourself before you decided to game the system.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be considerate to others who are interested in addressing the BLP issues. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, right...because you are so concerned with the topic that you have failed to participate on the talk page where a discussion has been taking place for over an hr. and a half now, a discussion that was announced on this very thread, all the genuinely concerned editors are following procedures on that thread.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like a continuation of DC's attempts to game the system and use multiple formats to attack Cirt. "...the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process" seems like a really good description for what is going on with Delicious carbuncle (talk)'s recent edits on the ANI and this board.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have placed a comment on DC's talk page asking him to cease gaming the system.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the assessment of the actions of as made above by Coffeepusher. I have brought up individual issues that can be addressed one-by-one, at the article's talkpage. I note that prior to this BLPN thread, there were zero attempts made to even try to bring up and discuss any issues, at the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Please see action by in edit to article, see edit summary: "remove neutrality tag - Cirt has argued well for the merit of included material" -- thank you very much for this. This comment and action is most appreciated. Cheers,

Criminal–Crime-noted-for
Notice: I've posted a discussion on the wp:MERGE page's discussion page asking about how to determine when to create separate articles about both a criminal and the crime for which s/he is noted and when to combine them.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon Schama
Since Schama is not by any means a "British" name, I wonder a) how to pronounce it (Shama? which would be Germanic, Skama? which would be Italianate), and b) whence it comes? For someone who does do a lot of "British" stuff, his heritage would be interesting to know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.35.213 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * His "heritage" is discussed in the article. Unless the pronunciation is unusual, it would just be pronounced phonetically (Shama). I don't find it confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg Wasserstrom


This article is pure self-promotion. None of this person's achievements seem particularly notable for someone at age twenty-five. While a "National Mark of Excellence Award" for work done on the newspaper of American University is nice, it alone is hardly worth a wikipedia article on this person. There are many people who have written on Gawker or Wonkette, and the articles he links to indicate that he did so as an intern, not even as a full-time staff member. Without casting aspersions on this person or their career potential, this article reads more like a Linked-in profile than a Wikipedia article.

The picture also seems to strongly indicate that the article is self-promotion alone. It was uploaded by Mr. Wasserstrom as a "self-portrait." Cardinalwraith (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PRODed. If declined without better sourcing, will take to AfD. Ray  Talk 20:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedyclick.com - another Scientology-related BLP concern
In Speedyclick.com, two named individuals (former owners of the company) are identified as members of the church of Scientology. These people appear to have sold the company a couple of years after starting it. Their identification as Scientologists appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the company. Another former shareholder, Doug Dohring, appears to be mentioned only to strengthen the ties to Scientology.

The company has been connected to spamming activity using sources that now appear to be dead or non-functional, so it is not possible to confirm the allegations. Even if true, the section contains some allegations that are unrelated to Speedyclick.

Please try to focus on the BLP issues here and take any other comments elsewhere. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article states that the failed business was run according to scientology business management techniques, which would appear to be relevant to the business. Are you interested in any subjects other than Scientology?  I've always thought that Puppy could be developed into a really interesting feature article, if someone wanted to apply themselves to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It does state that - with no source. Was the company run according to those same principles after it was sold (i.e. when it failed)? Did those principles account for its failure or was it another casualty of the dotcom bubble bursting? Do we typically identify the religious affiliations of former business owners? If the affliliation were Jewish or Moslem, would we even be having this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What a funny question. The IRS might consider Scientology to be a religion for tax-law purposes, but your own POV appears to be showing in your suggestion of that comparison.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Whatever I might think about the validity of Scientology, I believe that its adherents view it as their "religion". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * now this is a surprise, DC has failed to bring these concerns on Dougs talk page speedyclicks talk page and has failed to do any editing whatsoever to any of the articles. hasn't it already been stated to you that this is not the proper format for content disputes without first going through a proper procedureCoffeepusher (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * and again hereCoffeepusher (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with FisherQueen, I don't see a BLP concern in that article and I disagree that DC's post here identifies any. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although this deals specifically with categories, I think this quote from BLP is germaine: "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.". 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs)
 * It isn't germane at all, because as you note it relates to categories. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it relates to prose as well, in keeping with the overall intent of the policy. I've asked Jimbo, since he seems to be active at the moment and was instrumental in setting up that policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Delicious carbuncle, but you're not making any attempt to correct the articles before you come here. I consider your actions here as nothing but disruption and I'm a hairs breadth away from blocking you for it. --GraemeL (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GraemeL, you possibly missed my earlier statements about that very question. I am already under fire for innocuous comments such as the reference to Scientology as a religious belief above. Although I understand Cirt would like to have these discussions on the talk pages of individual articles, I am not going to edit any Scientology-related articles since any such edits will undoubtedly be seized upon as evidence of some ulterior motive. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then stay clear of the articles. If you post about any more articles to this forum without first having tried to fix the problems at the article in question, I will block you for disruptive editing. You're tying up too many people that could be doing other things. --GraemeL (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. What is taking up people's time is needlessly arguing about why I'm raising concerns about the articles. Any time spent fixing the problems has not been wasted. You have threatened to block me for raising BLP issues on the BLP noticeboard - I think you may have lost your perspective here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Has even attempted to address the issue at the article's talk page, at all, prior to escalating the issue? -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I have removed a bunch of material from the sect in the article relating to Scientology, leaving only the secondary source, see diff link. Can further discussion of this issue please take place at the article's talk page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt, for fixing those issues. Again, I will not be knowingly editing any Scientology articles. Why is Doug Dohring identified as a Scientologist? My concerns about the spam section have not been addressed. The external links identifying the former owners as Scientologists seem both bogus and completely unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I have removed the remainder of the Scientology sect from the article. I removed the sect relating to the history of spam-incidents. I removed the External links sect. Can further issues please move to the article's talk page instead of BLPN? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Could you remove the AdPro spam as well? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: I have removed the AdPro spam as well. That info is no longer in the article. It is now gone from the Wikipedia page about the company. It is not present in the text any longer. Done yet? Can further discussion take place at the article talk page for the company? -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd made a note to myself to do that after the drama had calmed down. --GraemeL (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all of the points originally made in the ANI posting have now been addressed. Thanks. Can the categories related to spamming be removed as well, now that the section has been at least temporarily removed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update I have removed those two categories. They are gone. They are not in the article any longer. They have ceased to be. Can further discussion now take place subsequently at the article's talk page??? Must it continue to needlessly take place at this page as well?? Is that necessary?? -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ihiekwe
Can someone take a look at Michael Ihiekwe, please? I'm not sure if this is a BLP, because it seems the player already has an article (Jack Robinson (footballer born 1993)) and the user removed the CSD template I put up. Since I'm not sure about the guidelines, I thought I would refer the question here. ~ Matthew  Say hi!How I've helped 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They are two different people. Both articles have links to their profiles at the official club web site. --GraemeL (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying! I probably should have noticed that earlier. ~  Matthew  Say hi!How I've helped 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon
Several editors are using the Felisa Wolfe-Simon biography to criticize GFAJ-1. Although there is already a criticism section over at GFAJ-1, the criticism they keep adding to the biography article is self-published and has not been subject to peer review. Per reliable source examples in physical sciences, mathematics and medicine it is not appropriate to use unpublished, non-peer reviewed blogs to criticize a biographical subject or the science. Please note, that in addition to criticizing Wolfe-Simon with self-published blogs and opinion pieces, they are also crticizing GFAJ-1 with only editorials and blogs. This is not acceptable for a biographical article nor for a science topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bigger questions aside (I think that Zimmer's and Redfield's blog posts are important pieces for understanding GFAJ-1), they are self-published sources which clearly are inappropriate for FWS's biography. Whether they belong at GFAJ-1 is a separate question, and one that's less clear-cut. Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Felisa Wolfe-Simon's notability is in large part due to the controversy over the GFAJ-1 claims. Consequently I believe citing the most notable criticisms of the claims made in her latest article is justified. Once published criticisms appear then these can also be added. Furthermore, an "in press" article keeps appearing in the publications section. This is not verifiable and should not appear in the bio until it is published. --Paul (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Justified despite the fact that it is forbidden by policy? How so? Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Am just catching up on WP:BIO policies. I hadn't realised blogs etc were verboten. I can see why for the greater good. I do think most people wont have heard of Felicia until the blog storm. Mentions of criticisms on the bio can wait until "reliable" sources are available. --Paul (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy is the only reason that Felisa Wolfe-Simon is notable. To fail to include any mention of the controversy is equivalent to publishing the biography of a public figure with no mention of why that person is a public figure.  If there can be no mention of the controversy according to Wikipedia rules, then there should be no bio on FWS.  At present the article is extremely misleading, as it leaves the strong impression that the arsenic research is plausible and represents an important scientific advance (therefore justifying a biography of FWS) when in fact the near universal response from the scientific community has been that this research is badly wrong.  It is also untrue that the citations for the criticism are not well-sourced.  One citation is an article in Slate that, along with an accompanying second article by Carl Zimmer, quotes from 13 well-known scientists criticizing the work.  This is not "self-published" -- it is a news story published in a major online magazine that quotes from recognized experts in the field.  (see http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/an-arsenic-bacteria-postmortem-nasa-responds-tries-to-pit-blogs-vs-credible-media-organizations/).  The broader claim that the only legitimate scientific criticism is peer reviewed -- which was originally advanced by FWS herself on Twitter -- has been loudly rejected by the scientific community.  It is inappropriate that wikipedia policy is being used in this case to justify excluding information that is necessary to present this biography accurately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.181.158 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP makes a good point. Felisa Wolfe-Simon is largely notable due to the controversy over the claims made in the Science article. Without mentioning this in the Bio then there is little point to the article. --Paul (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that claim is not in any way true. Felisa Wolfe-Simon is notable for her research, not the controversy over the research.  All scientific research is subject to criticism.  This is no different.  The scientists critcizing her research are welcome to publish their criticisms in scientific journals.  The biographical article is neither misleading  nor erroneous; the IP obviously missed the words "proposed" and "if correct".  Criticism of her research needs to be tightly sourced, and it would be inappropriate to turn her biography into a criticism piece based on blog postings and opinion pieces. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem could be solved by merging Felisa Wolfe-Simon to GFAJ-1, since they entirely overlap in terms of facts reliably sourced to the secondary literature. (That is, Felisa Wolfe-Simon is only known because of GFAJ-1, and GFAJ-1 is only known because of Felisa Wolfe-Simon). Abductive  (reasoning) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "problem" (if there is one) can be solved by giving the so-called "controversy" the weight it deserves using reliable sources. In other words, describing it in the appropriate place, with a link to the criticism in the main article.  One sentence is all that is required.  As for BLP1E, she appeared in the astrobiology literature before this announcement, and the previous awards and publications in combination with the putative discovery meet or exceed WP:ACADEMIC and negate claims of BLP1E. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, y'know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lebowski, I mean, dude, I mean Abductive, are you saying it does not meet the criteria for ACADEMIC? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that her notability or lack thereof hinges on the bacteria actually using arsenic in its nucleotides. There is no way a page on a post-doc with an h-index of 5 would survive AfD. And I am saying that all the articles, including Arsenic DNA, are entirely duplicative of one another. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be favoring one criteria for notability over others that you are excluding. Do I have that right?  As for duplication between articles, it looks like arsenic DNA was created just moments before GFAJ-1, and because GFAJ-1 has become more of a substantive article, arsenic DNA might be a candidate for a merger; In fact, shouldn't arsenic DNA redirect to hypothetical types of biochemistry? (see Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus)  This is tricky, because if GFAJ-1 turns out to be completely bogus, then that article would benefit from being merged into a section on arsenic DNA in the HTB article.  As for the biography article, I believe it is notable enough to exist on its own based on the criteria at ACADEMIC. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bass Musician Magazine
This article is (well) written by the publisher of the magazine. It is a public relations exercise - an advertisement. It is written in the first person plural (we/our) throughout. It is not notable - it cannot be referenced because there are no third party references available - I've searched. The publisher, Venus Imaging Education, LLC, cannot be referenced either, except through its own publications. They are using Wikipedia purely for their own purposes. I think it should be deleted but thought I'ld ask for concensus here. I've prodded it in any case. Mark Dask 12:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't see how this is a BLP issue, but in general if you consider a discussion and consensus is required before deletion, it would be appropriate to use the WP:Articles for deletion process rather than WP:PROD. January   (talk)  16:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not - sorry I posted on the wrong page. Thanks. I'll remove the prod. Mark Dask 20:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Beeblebrox for deleting this article - which had previously been deleted - it confirmed my concerns. Mark  Dask 11:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mechele Linehan
This article was written mostly by someone with too little factual knowledge of this case and of Mrs. Linehan because it contains errors. It also uses language that exhibits a personal agenda rather than academic or journalistic. Even the discussions concerning whether it should be deleted contain misinformation about her case, the overturned conviction, and where Mrs. Linehan awaits her new trial. Therefore, the article dumbs down and diminishes Wikipedia. The site should not be used for personal agendas or vendettas and it should be required to contain accurate information or be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akminister (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What assertions are errors? The state of referencing on that article is not all that bad; some paragraphs lack references, but it does seem that the article was on the whole written on the basis of sources that would support the assertions made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is really trash. However it probably does meet the notability standards. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yitzchok Zilberstein
Yitzchok Zilberstein is an almost verbatim copy of the text at enotes.com. The image is also the same. I think the wiki version is in violation but might be wrong. Mark Dask 12:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The text at enotes states explicitly "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". At least they ackmowledge this. Our text is clearly not a copyvio. RolandR (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * oops my mistake. Mark  Dask 13:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien
I'm certain the picture doesn't adhere to guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.200.141 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Cathy O'Brien? I can't see an article on there. --Errant $(chat!)$ 13:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A picture was added and uploaded by this contributor User:Coming4you, its here at commons and here at enwiki. Its a book cover and the uploader User:Coming4you seems to be claiming to be the book author ..? Can someone with otrs permission have a look at it. Anyway, the book cover has no place in the article and all the contributors edits have been reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesney Hawkes
A new editor is adding some contentious material to Chesney Hawkes. They added as a source, his official website biography. I reviewed the information and could not find it. The editor readded the information and said it was verifiable. I would appreciate if another editor would looka nd see if they can find the information.  GB fan  13:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like simple nonsense BLP vandalism. Reverted and warned --Errant $(chat!)$ 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri
My Article is subjected to extreme kind of Vandalism. There are guys named as follows:

(1) - 07:52, 13 December 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (2) - 19:33, 12 December 2010 Becritical (talk | contribs) (3) - 18:53, 9 December 2010 GorgeCustersSabre (talk | contribs)

They are vandalizing the article heavily. They have deleted the entire Article (except first two lines and last few lines), meaning over 95% of the Article without my knowledge.

Please restrict them and remove them from editing any Article on Wickipedia.

I will rewrite the whole article again to be placed on the above page.

Thank you for you immediate action. Guide99 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)--Guide99 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - If you mention contributors in such a way at a noticeboard would you please notify them so that they can defend themselves, thanks. It looks to me more like as a new user with apparent single issue contributions you would do well to listen to and take the advice of experienced contributors who appear to have been attempting to bring your contributions in line with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please take some time also to read WP:VANDALISM as it has a pretty specific definition here and I assure you that you will see that the contributions of the users you have named here are not vandalism at all but correct efforts to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, be aware that it's not your article (see WP:OWN). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Norman Thaddeus Vane
I took out a sentence that said one person had said, in his own autobiography, that the subject had been his "room mate" as being trivial and somewhat questionable by BLP standards. After that the book itself was put back as a "further reading" link with the page that gave the information given. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Removed it. You could have waited for a response on the talk page, prior to going directly to here to post about this. Hopefully this is now resolved to your satisfaction? :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist request
It has just been announced that Sam Allardyce is no longer with the Blackburn Rovers. The article is now being hit with various commentary and conjecture and I'm hoping a few BLP-minder editors could pop it on to their watchlist to ensure it remains POV and sourced until the hoopla dies down. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ray McGovern
I've removed the following because it was citing a non-reliable source for claims about a third-party. I just want to make sure I did the right thing. Can someone review my edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, a better source could probably be found, yes.--Scott Mac 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

John C. Maxwell
Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The article (with the exception of the arrest incident) appears to be a self-promotional PR piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.124 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The only secondary source used for this article (ignoring the subjects own website and book-jacket) is to a news story that is no longer viewable. So, on the face of it, this is an unsourced BLP concerning a non-notable (as far as I can tell) author. I'd say nominate it for deletion if that's what you want to do. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I added several footnotes, including two from the New York Times, removed some puffery from lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Elliot
CORRECTION

Refering To Tom Elliot,Scotland and Lions rugby player. Please be advised that he never played for Langholm and Christy Elliot of Langholm is not his brother.This is confirmed in The History of Scottish Rugby by Sandy Thorburn, page 344. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasGrieve (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - I left the creator (of the article) a note asking him to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the source for this information was "The Scottish Rugby Miscellany" by Richard Bath. NB - I believe more than one Tom Elliot played for the Scottish national rugby team, although I think the other may have been a one cap wonder.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What to cite in the case of a notable person, undisscussed in seccondary sources?
I've been going through random BLP's trying to cite them. I fould Marilyn T. Miller, which despite reading almost like a resume sometimes, she does have peer review published work http://journals.lww.com/internat-ophthalmology/citation/1984/02410/ocular_abnormalities_in_craniofacial_malformations.12.aspx and I could probably cite the rest using her real resume here www.uic.edu/com/eye/Department/Faculty/AbbreviatedCVs/Miller.pdf. There are likely many significant researchers who have published peer review, and publishing peer review should count as notable, who have not been written about in seccondary sources. I would think the actual question of notability, is if someone ELSE has cited them in a peer review article :D ... But even that is not a useful source. Can I cite her resume as the source for the article? It seems like a bad precident to set, but not sure what else to use... Tim.thelion (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is she really wikipedia notable? Does she really need a wiki bio? will anyone be searching for her? Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the long list of places she has taught, she likely has thousands of students. Tim.thelion (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A notable person undiscussed in secondary sources is not a notable person after all. See WP:GNG. Unless some new sourcing can be found, the article should be deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it more, I say delete too. Not because she's not notable.  But because she's not notable to the general public.  Anyone who is interested in her, will not be interested in reading her wikipedia page.  They will be interested in her CV, or her published works.  So why copy someone's CV(incompletely at that) and put it on wikipedia?  We should delete this article... Tim.thelion (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Tim. I'm taking that as enough of an agreement to nominate the article for deletion, which I've just done. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I understand the concern about the lack of independent sources, this does NOT appear to me to be a speedy delete candidate; her C.V. shows quite a number of claims to real distinction, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, President of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, President of the American Ophthalmological Society, and a bunch of awards from professional organizations including a Life Achievement Honor Award from the American Academy of Ophthalmology. According to the excerpt I was able to see in Google Scholar from this article in the Archives of Opthalmology, "In 1988, Dr Marilyn Miller became the first woman to join the board of directors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology."  WP:ACADEMIC says "For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted"; her CV and the sources from her university confirm these distinctions.  It's hard for us to find independent confirmation of this stuff because we don't have free access to the opthamalogical journals, but here are a few more mentions of her I did find   At worst, this belongs at AfD where it can get a chance to be better sourced before disappearing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:36, 14

December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Arxiloxos. I know nothing about this woman and of course it would be right for her article to be retained (with sourcing) if she is indeed notable. But what is needed is some sources which are independent of the subject. I think (although I'm willing to be shown wrong) that this would also need to be outside of academic journals. Obviously, most academics get a mention at some point in academic journals, but not all are notable. Genuinely notable academics would generally be mentioned in the press or in text books, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To my understanding there is nothing in WP:ACADEMIC that requires mention "outside of academic journals." In any case, at the moment my main concern is procedural: I don't think that a CSD is appropriate for this article, since the article clearly asserts the importance and significance of the subject, and I would respectfully request that you withdraw the CSD tag from the article.  I certainly understand that you may think it is an appropriate subject for AfD instead.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request: the subject of this article is way past the threshold for A7. Feel free to nominate for AFD, but I'll be recommending to keep if it goes to AFD. Quarl (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added 6 footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, good work Anythingyouwant. I thought I had looked pretty thoroughly at google, but you found some good sources :) Thanks Tim.thelion (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's google-fu. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

John Two-Hawks
A mess, definitely biased and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.52 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you call it a "mess" or "biased". I agree with the lack of sources. Why don't you take it to the Talk page or add a template to it AND take it to the Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd removed some very negative controversial material from the start of the article at 00:31, 14 December 2010, a few minutes after seeing this notice. The contrast and confusion between this material and the generally neutral/positive tone of the rest of the article is probably what the IP was referring to. Yes the talkpage will be fine for this now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Taio Cruz - birth name - please help reach consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taio_Cruz

The article currently states his birth name as Adetayo Ayowale Onile-Ere, even though the source link states it as Jacob Taio Cruz

There is some discussion in the discussion page, but I cannot find reliable sources for the name currently up there.

Please could someone help us reach consensus? Should it not be removed until we can agree on a reliable source?

Thanks --Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4eldred (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The birth name has been removed for now. Details at article talk page.  By the way, User:January found this excellent quote from Cruz: “I think journalists should be banned from checking Wikipedia." Indeed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Clive Nolan
Someone enquired about the article Clive Nolan in the Wikipedia help IRC channel, saying they'd wrote it along with the person themself. As there appear no reliable sources, I think this could do with some attention. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I did get a chance to try and explain COI and AUTO concerns to the user, and I hope they'll be taking the advise, and making their suggestion on the talk page.  Chzz  ► 16:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Stubbed, to the bones. It was all uncited and likely uncitable. IMO he is better merged to the band article Pendragon_(band) - Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Paras, Crown Prince of Nepal
Lacks citations; filled with unconfirmed fringe theories; needs to have a warning on the top of the page to make it clear that the article is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmk763 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing to do, when that happens at a BLP, is to slice away anything uncited that's potentially controversial, questionable, or just strikes you as being unencyclopedic in tone or style. I've cut out a large chunk of the speculation; we'll see where this goes. Ray  Talk 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

9/11 truth movement
The Adherents section of our article on the 9/11 Truth movement names at least 25 living people as members of the movement, most of which are uncited. I have no doubt that at least some of the names are correctly identified by not sourced. OTOH, I'm skeptical about several of the celebrities listed.

Here's partly why: 9/11 conspiracy theorist don't often identify themselves as conspiracy theorists and use euphemisms such as "truth" to mean conspiracy theories. Sometimes, people are duped into signing petitions by 9/11 conspiracy theorists without even realizing it. I believe a White House staffer ended up resigning after his name was found on the petition. Anyway, I'm not sure how to proceed. I don't have the time or inclination to try to research each and every one of these names to see if they belong and are properly sourced. But in the past the 9/11 conspiracy theories topic space has been a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I don't want to trigger a possible edit war by removing the unsourced names. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is no source, remove them. This is simple Wikipedia policy. Actually, I'd be almost inclined to remove the entire "Prominent adherents" paragraph, on the basis that while the people listed may be notable, their notability has nothing to do with their ideas on 9/11, and they are merely there to add credibility to claims for widespread support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sal Giunta
This is the first paragraph from SSgt Giunta's bio, "Salvatore Augustine Giunta (born January 21, 1985) is a staff sergeant in the United States Army. He is the first living person to receive the United States military's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor, for actions that occurred since the Vietnam War. Giunta was cited for saving members of his squad on October 25, 2007 during the War in Afghanistan."

SSgt. Giunta is not the first American to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam war. Two Delta Force soldiers received the Medal of Honor for action in Somalia, 1993. Please correct this, we owe it to our troops that fought in that conflict 17 years ago. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.229.172 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're misinterpreting the statement. It says he is the first living person to receive the award. Apparently, the soldiers who received the award in 1993 received it after their death. Here is the quote from the source: "The highest American decoration for military valour, the Medal of Honor has been awarded only eight times, all posthumously, since 1973. Two were given to snipers for the part they played in the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 in protecting a downed helicopter pilot. Since then, there have been six awarded from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but none of them has been given to a surviving serviceman." See here. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Carmel's Hope
User:Carmel's Hope, although in userspace, looks like a biographical article, has no references, and contains personal information (full name, date of birth, school name) of what purport to be living people who are minors. It also has some information that can be seen as controversial negative claims about one of them.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the whole thing but I'm sure it falls under NOTWEBHOST and various BLP issues. Should I;
 * Edit the userpage to remove the problematic information, or;
 * MfD the userpage (does this make sense as it then leaves the user without a userpage?), or;
 * Politely suggest to the user that this is not what Wikipedia userspace is for, or;
 * Something else?

The user in question does not edit anywhere other than in user space

Related is User:Empress Diana which looks like a biographical article, has no references, and contains personal information, but not of minors.

And also User:JLP2010 which looks like a biographical article, has no references, and mentions a number of what purport to be living people who are minors (plus one dead one) giving their full names and (by implication) what school they intend.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:User pages says: "Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by Oversighters. See Requests for Oversight....The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons. If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion. If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, the edit appears unlikely to cause problems, or you are quite sure it is appropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. If the entire page is inappropriate, consider blanking it, or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page. Unsuitable pages, media and images in userspace may also be nominated for deletion or (if appropriate) speedy deleted, but special care should be taken as the user may be expecting leeway and take it personally, and there are a few exceptions. Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity. See Deleting user pages below. Editors may add  (optional "|visible=yes") to a userspace page that is a source of concern, which will remove it from search engines and can also provide a lightweight alternative to deletion, or prevent external indexing during discussion. It will not affect the page for legitimate userspace purposes or on the internal search engine, and should not be used to make a point, nor removed without discussion or consensus. See  for a suitable user talk note template."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the time being, while we figure out what to do, I've watchlisted the three pages, put "noindex" tags on all three, and put corresponding notices at the three talk pages. These are weird pages, and I wonder if there are more like them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A very similar page was intentionally blanked a few months ago. We should probably do likewise.  But we should probably also do something more, in order to stop the game of Whac-A-Mole.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Carmel's Hope has been deleted and suppressed by an oversighter. I would suggest sending the others to WP:MFD, deletion of the pages may be sufficient to make this user realise she can't use Wikipedia as a web host/memorial site. If they continue creating accounts in order to have multiple user pages this would be a matter for WP:SPI as that is not an acceptable use of multiple accounts. January   (talk)  16:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This user page fell solidly within disclosure of personal information of a minor. No discussion is necessary or appropriate in such cases; email User:Oversight if you don't have the tool to suppress it yourself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:JLP1996 and User:JLP2010 have now been suppressed by an oversighter. I didn't notice that the "Oversight" pages at Wikipedia promise that the email addresses and names of emailers will be held confidential.  If so, that assurance needs to be made more prominent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested that emailers to Oversight be assured that all identification information other than their usernames will remain confidential. This may be the current practice, but potential emailers are not being adequately assured of it (which I believe discourages oversight requests).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to point this out because it seems so obvious. Oversighters, who are the ones removing confidential or otherwise private information from this site, are about the last people on earth to violate someone else's privacy by handing out their email addresses. Risker (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I went ahead and emailed oversight requests for two out of three of the pages that were suppressed here. But I'm telling you that WP:Requests for oversight is very off-putting; it didn't say where my email was going, who exactly would learn my personal identity, et cetera.  All that's needed to fix this would be a simple statement that emailer's addresses and identities beyond their usernames will be treated confidentially.  Very simple.  I expect the Oversighters would get more business that way.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet investigation (SPI) has been requested at Sockpuppet investigations/JLP1996.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am going to inform all four accounts of the SPI, since I don't consider it will give them any information likely to assist them in any form of disruption, and I still consider we should continue good faith attempts to communicate with this user. (Not that I hold great hopes of such attempts succeeeding.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the several notices on the three talk pages may be all we can do, short of sending emails.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All these accounts have now been blocked following SPI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharyn O'Halloran


I suggest that a few of us watchlist this page. The subject is a Columbia professor whose spouse has recently been in the tabloids, and the IP authors have started coming out of the woodwork. Ray Talk 05:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. Isn't it also, technically, an unreferenced BLP that's not marked as such? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Better yet, it appears to be an autobio, written back in the day when Wikipedia's referencing standards weren't terribly high. We'll have to clean it up at some point, but it doesn't seem terribly urgent. It's a well-written autobio with a nice encyclopedic tone, and it doesn't say anything controversial. Ray  Talk 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just added one very basic inline reference so that I don't feel compelled to add it to the unreferenced BLP backlog in my usual callous drive-by-tagging manner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed seeing this and just re-added the same bio to this page, I will now remove it. I think WP:NPF should apply but a couple of other people seem to think it should be decided by WP:CENSOR. betsythedevine (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Betsy, thanks for bringing the discussion here from the subjects's discussion page. Betsy has just deleted the entire "Personal Life" section of the subject bio, including well sourced, truthful statements about the arrest of the subject's spouse. Please note that my only interest in the topic, as a newcomer to editing Wikipedia, is to understand the meta-data (I never heard of Dr. O'Halloran previously, and will not be editing her bio or reverting any edits). The subtext here is what we are trying to accomplish in creating a biographical entry. There is much heat and little light when these issues are discussed, and what seems to me a lot of Wikilawyering, especially with references to WP:NPF. I suggest that any policy validating removal of Dr. O'Halloran's spouse's arrest would also justify deleting the reference to the suicide of Henry Adams's wife Clover (Adams would approve; he never mentioned her in "Education of Henry Adams") and the reference in Mia Farrow's bio to Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi. I believe these examples are different from the current one only in degree (if at all) and not kind. Arguments about the relative fame of the individuals involved (the argument under WP:NPF seems to be that the material should not be mentioned because the Person Isn't Really Very Famous) put us on a slippery slope: fame is a spectrum and at what point does a person already Notable become Notable Enough for the inclusion of disturbing or depressing (but truthful, well sourced) material? Finally, if deleting this material from Dr. O'Halloran's bio is by consensus the right result, may I suggest that we either all agree that the bios (at least of living persons) should be held to the same careful, bland standards as entries in "Who's Who", or, alternatively, that we make a rule against inclusion of factual, well-sourced Bad Stuff Which Happened to Good People Who Did Not Deserve It?  Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, where do I even start. Henry Adams is long dead - nearly 100 years. Sharyn O'Halloran is presumed alive. Yes we do treat biographies of living persons differently. WP:NPF is not just "an argument", it's policy. WP:BLP is not just policy, it's part of one of the WP:PILLARS. As for Farrow, yes the various significant and enduring coverage of the incidents regarding Allen and Soon Yi is sufficient to justify a brief mention - a few sentences - in her very substantial biography on Wikipedia (although I think I will shorten that biography a little, real soon now.) Who's Who isn't an Encyclopedia, the repeated mentions of it seem to be a succession of straw men. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and especially not a tabloid newspaper. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, you are quite correct that the difference is one of degree, but it is a difference of degree sufficiently great to become a difference in kind. Whereas Woody Allen's relationship with Soon Yi is extremely well covered and a significant part of his public profile, that doesn't hold here. It may become true in this case in time, although I hope for the subject's sake that it doesn't. Furthermore, Woody Allen is, by nature of his profession and his own actions, a very public person, who invites media scrutiny into his lifestyle, whereas the subject here is an academic who keeps her personal life private. Again, sufficient media attention to this case may force a change in that status - but we would change our position after the fact, not before. Our policy on BLPs requires us here both to weigh the significance of particular facts to a person's notability, and to consider whether they are essentially private persons. Those considerations cause most of us familiar with BLPs to consider addition of scandalous and harmful information to be inappropriate right now. Ray  Talk 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) :::Demiurge, agreed. JonathanWallace, if you object to WP:NPF, argue for changes on the talk page for that policy. Wikipedia has different policies for dead people and for living people who Are Very Famous--those policies are not relevant to Sharyn O'Halloran; WP:NPF is.betsythedevine (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. I'm really enjoying our discussion and hope I'm not annoying anybody too much. I'm just trying to derive some logical rules I can understand for BLP policy...and I can't. As I posted on Dr. O'Halloran's discussion page a few moments ago, I have carefully read WP:NPF and interpret it to protect Wikipedia and its contributors, not the subject. Unsourced, negative material on people who are not public figures can get us all in big trouble. However, the information in diuspute here is accurate (spouse was arrested, charged with incest). There is no libel issue. I don't agree with interpreting the paragraph to mean we should avoid nonlibelous, accurate, well sourced information on living people who are "not very notable". This gets us onto an illogical spectrum of a million gradations of "barely notable" vs. "somewhat" vs. "very", and if this is really the case, I think we would all burn many more pixels than we already do trying to figure that out. So I am not comfortable with the argument that we can report similar events about Mia Farrow but not Dr. O'Halloran because the former is very famous and the latter is barely notable, where libel is not an issue. Anyway, I understand all your positions, have clearly stated my own and will try not to keep this going as I have no particular interest in Dr. O'Halloran's bio. Please note my similar comments on Charles Rackoff's bio elsewhere on this noticeboard. I'm just trying to make breakfast in a world gone apes**t (yes, I know there's also a WP policy on that). Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia :-) The existence of this very noticeboard is testimony to how hard it can be to turn policy into simple rules suited to writing articles. The relevant passage from [WP:NPF]] is "include only material relevant to their notability." If one's spouse is arrested for shooting a rival academic, that might pass the relevance test. betsythedevine (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't boil down to "will posting this get us sued? If no, post it". There's more to it than that. Perhaps partly because the scandal->sales->profit chain gets broken when we're all volunteers. Despite what you may have been expecting, in general Wikipedia is more conservative in what it publishes about living people than newspapers. Oh, and the link you want for breakfast is WP:BACON, religion and personal preference allowing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel
Can someone who knows a little more than I do about Rahm Emanuel take a look at his bio? Recent edits look a little iffy, but I think it may need further attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Laidlaw
I am Tom Laidlaw. Someone is continually writing negative comments about me on my page. I have edited them in the past. I tried to edit some comments today but it appears I can't because I am not the administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaycode (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you succeeded in removing it - check again. You might want to read WP:COI but, since the material you removed was totally lacking in sources, someone else would've removed it if you hadn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added a warning to User talk:69.119.158.73 Alpha Quadrant    talk    17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ritchey
Hello. I'm no BLP expert, but this is a newly created article with no inline citations. There are references at the bottom of the article though. There is also information that a criminal records and accusations of being a spy for Canada. Some of the personal imformation seems embarrassing or libelous as well and isn't cited. Request someone with more knowledge take a quick look.--v/r - TP 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more and more thinking this is a hoax/db-bio type article that someone is making for a laugh. None of the references mention him and the article is a bit on the unbelievable side.  Second opinion?--v/r - TP 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of atheists


This list's stated inclusion principle is


 * This is a list of people who have been identified as atheists, or who have expressed that they do not believe in deities.

To the extent that this concerns living people, it's a BLP violation, for two reasons:

1. WP:BLPCAT requires self-identifcation in matters or religious belief and sexual preference. Identification by third parties is not enough. (This has been part of BLP policy for as long as the policy has existed.)

2. According to authoritative surveys, most people who don't believe in God do not identify as atheists.

The same applies to the various sublists.-- JN 466  05:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What the heck? Why is nonsense like this included in Wikipedia in the first place? If this is a valid article, can I create one on 'halfwits who think that they can classify people according to arbitrary categories based on abstract questions on theological propositions they may never have attempted to answer, not being deluded enough to think they could'? Obviously I'll include anyone on my list that I can't find conclusive evidence shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JN466, it looks like you haven't mentioned WP:BLPCAT at the article talk page. Why not?  There's a discussion there about this very topic.  The editor Noleander wrote, "The WP:BLP policy does not require that all information come from the subject's own mouth. If a reliable source says that the subject is an atheist, that is acceptable. The essence of the BLP policy is that the source has to be very reliable, and not a gossip-mongerer (for instance, if the source were hostile to the subject, that may disqualify the source). In addition, there is no requirement that the source use the word 'atheist': the source describes the person using words that reasonably fit within a common definition of "atheism", that is sufficient.". Why not try to set Noleander straight?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. In the UK - and probably much of the US - atheism means an absence of belief in God or a god. However, there is a determined effort by some evangelicals to push the concept of atheism as a specific belief system. People are more chary of being identified in this way in countries where religious faith is seen as something generally positive. I agree with Andy above and can forsee ongoing arguments about how to define an atheist. Fainites barley scribs 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These types of lists should be avoided here at all costs, especially if they require editors to make inclusion judgement not based on exact self-identification. There is some manner of contemporary disagreement about what "atheist" means in terms of disbelief.  For instance, the broad idea that atheism is the "absence of belief in God or gods" is not very traditional, and to some (myself included) much too general.  Agnosticism is also the "absence of belief in God or gods", but to many it is rather distinctly not atheism or any part of a spectrum of atheism.  I would argue that atheism is the belief that there are no gods.  The belief that the world is absent of gods, not the absence of belief in such gods.  But like I said others will disagree, but my point isn't that I, as an agnostic, am correct, but simply that the definition of atheism isn't as cut and dry as some believe it is.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Agnostics do not believe in God either. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, atheists make up only about 16% of non-believers in Europe, for example. The remainder are classified as "Nonreligious (agnostics): Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so." -- JN 466  10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agnostics neither know nor care (much). Look at Britannica's definition of atheists. . Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).  It includes persons expressing disbelief. That's all. Fainites barley scribs 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disbelief is different from nonbelief. Compare the Britannica definition of nonreligious (agnostic), in the same source: "Nonreligious (agnostics). Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so." -- JN 466  17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(Undent)I've put a note at the article talk page pointing here. I also quote policy at the article talk page: "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."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this mess is that someone moved the article to List of non-theists which opened a whole extra can of worms :) Then it got moved back and modified and... etc. I'm not sure of the relevance of your comments Griswaldo (FYI agnosticism is definitely distinct from atheism and you won't find a mainstream account that suggests one is a subset of another). Generally speaking the list criteria works on the broader definition of "little a" atheism (i.e. a belief that there is no God, rather and advocation of no God). For deceased subjects we can rely on their own accounts OR reliably published and neutral sources (and with the latter form of source we should be careful to ensure that it indicates the persons preference - i.e. if the subject rejected the term but a reputable source calls them atheist we should go with the former). For BLP's it is personal accounts only. If someone wants to go through the list and weed out the BLP problems I fully support them doing so, I don't have the time or the inclination though ;) On a side not: the list has as much legitimacy as List of Christians, and getting rid of it or applying particularly gregarious restrictions becomes difficult in that context. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment on my comment see Negative and positive atheism and Implicit and explicit atheism. In recent years the category has been stretched by some to include various types of people who have not made any determination of their own about the existence or non-existence of deities.  Anyone who is not a theist is basically considered an atheist of some sort in some of these schemes.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * yeh, sorry for the aside on this. I see the point you are making - but these are fringe issues, Atheism is pretty clear as an article in identifying the generally accepted broad and narrow definitions. It seems widely established in the list that we use the generally accepted wide definition with certain caveats --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute the idea that this is a "generally accepted wide definition". Definitions this inclusive may be generally accepted by many self-proclaiming contemporary atheists but not others.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to see it otherwise I am afraid, atheism has a pretty clear definition with wide sourcing, and the two articles you linked to are identified as fringe in a number of ways :) It is not really in debate what "atheism" is generally accepted to mean in normal usage. Of course; when dealing with a source we should account for the writers (or subjects) personal interpretation of the word. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources? Did you look at Jayen's reference to the Cambridge Companion to Atheism?  A majority of people who answer surveys that they do not believe in God do not self-identify as "atheists".  How can you argue that the inclusive definition of atheism is generally accepted in "normal usage"?  Above and beyond this it is listed in reference works as a more contemporary and alternative usage to the traditional and more strict usage.  As I said above, this inclusive definition may be the normal usage of self-identifying contemporary atheists perhaps, but not of others.  I keep on hearing about it being well attested to in reliable sources but I don't see it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you argue that the inclusive definition of atheism is generally accepted in "normal usage"? , I'm s;ightly confused because I have not argued this? Please have a good read of the atheism article - "little a" atheism is a well defined term dealing with the rejection of a deity. It is not overly inclusive and does not include agnosticism etc. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look you started this over something I claimed, so I'm the confused one, no offense. I was arguing against the even more inclusive definition listed above, that atheism is simply the "absence of belief in a deity".  Such a definition, does indeed include agnosticism.  If that's not what you are claiming as the "wider definition" then I plead innocence to the charges of causing the confusion.  I do think, more generally however, that the entry atheism is skewed towards the atheist POV, and gives the appearance of mass usage from that perpective as opposed to any real sociological or socio-linguistic evidence.  But that is, I guess, a matter to be discussed elsewhere.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus that has developed for this list up to this point is that it is to be inclusive of all persons who do not believe in deities, as confirmed by reliable sources. The subjects' choice of a particular label for this non-belief is not considered a necessity for (or an obstacle to) inclusion. It is the position that is being documented--the term atheist (or, until somewhat recently, nontheist) in the title has merely been chosen as a far less unwieldy placeholder to mean, simply, "one who does not believe in deities." This definition, though more inclusive than some, is well-attested in numerous reliable sources.

To what extent does the policy or guideline for categories apply to lists? Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPCAT explicitly addresses this -  These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation. I don't think there is any question that for BLPs self-identification is a requirement.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good way to see that there is disagreement and inconsistency on this issue is to look at Ed Miliband. He's in the list but his article doesn't treat him as an atheist. See the tragically long talk page... some of which addresses this issue (search for atheist). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably a prime example of someone to be removed. If the article is inconclusive then he has no place on the list. My marker for lists such as this is does their article identify them as such. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source, and if a main entry is violating BLP you risk violating BLP at the list as well by not strictly applying WP:BLPCAT to the list itself. In other words do not simply rely on what is written in an entry, but of course use the main entry's reliable sourcing, when it does exist, to verify the claim.  But in the end it has to be self-identification per WP:BLPCAT and that is policy.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Apply common sense! To spell out what should have been clear; if the article reliably identifies them as an atheist then they work for inclusion in this list. My main point is I am always dubious of list entries with their own specific source where it is not mentioned in the article --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't help thinking that some people are missing the point here. As Jayen466 stated at the start of this discussion, and tmorton166 has just reminded us, WP:BLPCAT requires self-identification in matters or religious belief.... There is no need to argue about what constitutes atheism - the sole criteria for inclusion of any living individual on this list will be a WP:RS that demonstrates that he/she has explicitly self-identified as atheist. End of story. No other source has any relevance whatsoever. Anyone not meeting this criteria should be removed from the list immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that is not what Tim is saying, that's what I'm saying. Tim said that the main article on the BLP has to be conclusive about calling them an atheist.  That's not what BLPCAT says.  The subject has to self-identify as an atheist, as you are saying, as Jayen was saying, and as I have been trying to say as well.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (e)@Tim. I am also dubious of list entries in general, especially lists like this that classify people by religious belief, etc. I'm simply saying that a reliable source is required which shows self-identification.  If that source is also found in the main entry of the BLP, then great, if it found somewhere else, then great, but it is required.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But atheism is not a religious belief; it is a lack of religious belief. It is misleading to consider "lack of belief" as a sub-category of "belief". RolandR (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Although atheism is sometimes treated as a religious identity, atheism is not perfectly analogous to religious adherence. The latter involves membership in a religious organization, completion of initiation rites, and/or self-labeling according to a specific religious identity. Atheism is largely a philosophical position. Unlike most religious groups, atheists do not necessarily share a common cosmology, mythology, moral/ethical system, body of rituals, etc. Just as one needn't specifically identify oneself as a materialist, determinist, utilitarian, etc. in order to be reliably identified with these philosophical positions, so too one needn't specifically identify oneself as an "atheist" in order to be so identified. Expression of a view that constitutes atheism as defined in reliable sources is sufficient. Nick Graves (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Self identifying atheists certainly share those attributes with each other to a much closer degree than all of the different self-identifying theists. There is a false-dichotomy creeping in here between atheism and religion. You say atheism is a philosophical position, but the philosophical dichotomy is between atheism and theism, and not "religion".   Relgion, as a sociological category, cannot be confused with theism.  Sociologically speaking the various attributes you mentioned above are actually found in common between most self-identifying atheists.  Not between most non-theists, sure, and certainly not between most of the dissafiliated, but atheists yes.  That's the last I will say on this here though, since we are now way off topic.  My original point was only to illustrate definitional disagreement and not to hash out these disagreements.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the above paragraph, I am sympathetic to much of what you have written in this thread, Griswaldo. Yes, there is definitional disagreement, and I've made that point repeatedly over the years during my involvement with this list. If this disagreement is explicitly acknowledged in the list, and the inclusion criteria explained and supported by reliable sources, does this not address the following concern stated in the relevant policy?: "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." In other words, is the case for inclusion in this list not made clear by (1) acknowledging definitional disagreement, (2) explicitly stating what is meant by use of the term for purposes of this list, and (3) citing the reliable source that confirms that a particular person is an atheist according to the reliably attested definition chosen for the list?


 * Concerns about self-identification were addressed earlier by a move to "List of nontheists." Nontheist was then deemed a more neutral, less controversially defined term whose advantages outweighed its lesser currency as an identifier. I submit, however, that expression of non-belief in deities can be regarded as a sufficient self-identification as an atheist (broadly defined), even when use of the term is absent. Nick Graves (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I made the mistake of continuing to debate the definitions, and I apologize for that. Like I said I really just wanted to illustrate disagreement originally.  I think Jayen's point #2 is being overlooked a bit in the thread.  The point of BLP standards being very conservative and hinging on self-identification, is illustrated by the fact that many people say they don't believe in god(s) but do not self-identify as "atheists".  If we used inclusion criteria other than self-identification such individuals would be included despite their explicit distancing from identifying with the term "atheism".  Like it or not, "atheist" connotes much more than even "not believing in god(s)" to many people, and we can't impose our own criteria of what we claim the term means upon them.  We can write general entries on atheism based on the most reliable sources, but we can't go around calling people atheists if they are not willing to do so themselves.  That's my position on this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I think we actually agree on this - just coming from different ends. The atheism used in this list is, I think, self-identified atheists who fall under the general broad definition of "denying the existence of god" (not the ultra modern "include everything" fringe variance). By using the article I meant to imply that as long as it follows BLP then the conclusion of the article is fair; that is because it might be legitimate to label someone Atheist without them explicitly saying "I am an atheist". We can best deal with those issues at the article levels and just use the decisions there to fill the list. I think everyone agrees on this article - that we need to weed out any BLP problems, it's just getting down to sorting it ;) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK great. I'm just a tad too argumentative on this subject for some reason :).  It sounds like we are making headway at the list in a productive direction.Griswaldo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I've edited the intro to the list, in order to conform with WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all very well editing the intro, but the fact is that many (possibly most) entries on the list of living persons are in fact in violation of WP:BLP, as they do not provide WP:RS for self-identified atheism.
 * Given that the list is clearly flawed, can I suggest that the correct action would be to remove the article, and then start a new one with proper sourcing - doing anything else is just leaving the violations in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is perfectly okay, as regards dead people. As for live people, they could be deleted, but it might be better to put a "verification needed" tag next to each one, or just presume that each one complies with BLP policy until proven otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "...just presume that each one complies with BLP policy until proven otherwise...". Nope. Policy is policy. Nothing that might breach policy should be on the list until it shown that it doesn't. Why else have a policy in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy here. Unreferenced BLP information should be deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris, Andy, Anything: All information is supported by reliable sources. The question is not of sourcing, but of inclusion criteria. If it is a BLP violation to identify a living person as an atheist without them having specifically identified themselves using this term, then culling the list would be in order. However, complete "removal" of the list is not necessary. The history should be retained so editors have access to all of the sources that have been cited in order to rebuild it with more restrictive criteria. Having helped with or witnessed the addition of most of the several hundred entries, I'd wager that most of the entries would be retained under the more restrictive criteria, though many would indeed have to go.


 * I still think it is worth revisiting the issue of renaming the list. A number of possibilities come to mind: "List of nontheists," "List of atheists or nontheists," "List of atheists and other nontheists," "List of atheists and agnostics," or "List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists." Or there's the clunky "List of people who do not believe in deities," which is all that was meant by those who have developed the list. An objection was raised before to the use of the term "nontheists," but I still maintain that it does not have the definitional challenges or potential negative connotations of the term atheist. Nick Graves (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "All information is supported by reliable sources". Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. The article is in breach of WP:BLP. As such, it should not remain as an article on Wikipedia, just for the convenience of editors. As with any article, there is nothing that prevents someone copying it to a local hard drive, or indeed looking at the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy, whether the information is supported by reliable sources has quite a lot to do with BLP violations, real or alleged. I still don't see the conflict with BLPCAT here. Those who say they do not believe in deities have publicly self-identified with atheism, broadly defined, whether or not they use the word to label themselves. Regardless, atheism is not a religious belief. Nick Graves (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you regarding WP:RS and WP:BLP, however what you describe is a BLP violation. I do not "believe in deities" and if I were notable enough for an entry and you added me to a list of atheists I'd send in an OTRS request because I would deny rather vehemently that I was one.  The fact that you think all people who "do not believe in deities" are atheists does not make it so, and once again, the statistics Jayen quoted show that in fact a majority of people who say they do not believe in god(s) do not identify as atheists.  BLP is conservative exactly to protect the rights of living individuals, and that includes the right to choose their own religious, or non-religious self-identifications.  I think that part of this issue is closed since BLP is 100% clear on the matter.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) How about if we tag every living person on the list like this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still a violation of WP:BLP. The correct approach has to be to comment out all the names on the list, and then for those who wish the list to be maintained to go through each case and restore those who are either (a) dead, or (b) have cited RS verification of self-identified atheism. In fact I'm almost tempted to do this right now. Obviously, a note would have to be put on the page to explain why the list was empty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "comment out" mean? You mean "hide"? Anyway, there are clearly many dead people on the list (this is clear because the list includes year of death).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I say just go through the list and remove living individuals for whom an adequate source for self-identification cannot be found. I don't think there is any need to hide every entry of a BLP before verifying.  On the other hand I do not think verification tags will do either.  When the individual is assessed if there is no adequate sourcing simply delete, when there is retain.  My hunch is that 95%+ are going to be retained here.Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification sourcing
Do we actually need quotations from the living person using the self-identification of "atheist" or is an RS claim that they self-identify as such enough? For instance, the second entry on List of atheists (activists and educators) is Ayaan Hirsi Ali and it is sourced to the following quote from the Financial Times - "Too much reason can reform a faith away, which would be fine with Hirsi Ali, who regards herself as an atheist." My inclination is to say that this satisfies BLP unless the claim is disputed somewhere else. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your inclination is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it isn't - this is what WP:BLPCAT says: "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". The FT stating that someone regards him or herself as an atheist isn't the same thing as that person actually saying so: journalists can get things wrong.


 * The proviso "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life" also seems to be relevant here. On this basis, even self-identification as an atheist may not be sufficient.


 * Can I remind people that we cannot ignore WP:BLP 'by consensus' here. Even if we were to decide we thought the standard was too strict, we couldn't apply a looser one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy the problem is that you are interpreting the policy in ways that the rest of us are not. If a reliable source says that someone regards him or herself as an atheist we can trust that they have publicly identified as such unless another source disputes this fact.  It does not say, in any shape or form, that we need direct quotes from such figures, or that we need a reliable source to use the exact words used in the policy, or some such.  Of course consensus does not override policy, but when most editors interpret policy in one way and not another, well then that's what the policy says.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If I accept that for the moment (it isn't particularly clear-cut either way), how do you suppose we deal with the proviso in PP:BLPCAT that living people can only be included if "the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life"? That seems significant too, and was presumably included for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it seems that this proviso implies that the subjects must be notable as atheists, and not just a notable person who happens to be an atheist. A notable person who made a passing comment on their beliefs to a reporter or mentioned their beliefs in a single interview should not be on this list; someone whose activities that directly pertain to atheism have generated news coverage for whatever reason should be. As examples anyone who is particularly vocal about it, or is involved to some great extent in an atheist organization would qualify.-- Dycedarg   &#x0436;  06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, if a politician says "I don't believe in God", all the papers that don't support his party say, "S/he is a self-confessed atheist". Now, as I pointed out in my original post, the two are not the same. While politically motivated papers make the jump from "I don't believe in God" to "He is a self-confessed atheist", we as an encyclopedia should not. That is a very important point. The same applies to sexuality: if someone says in an interview, "I had a homosexual experience at boarding school", you may well get sources saying, "S/he is a self-identified bisexual". "I had a homosexual experience at boarding school" is not self-identification as "bisexual". Saying that we should categorise and infobox such a person as bisexual unless we can also find a quote where the person says, "I don't actually identify as bisexual, even though I had a homosexual experience when I was 14", is putting the cart before the horse. -- JN 466  10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From that perspective I'm very sympathetic to your POV and that of Andy. I wonder though if the language at WP:BLPCAT doesn't need to be strengthened in that direction.  It doesn't indicate that a person has to publicly declare a self-identification with the specific label used, instead using "belief" as the criterion. Holding a religious "belief" (or anti-belief) is not equivalent to identifying with a group of seemingly like-minded people.  Self identification, in other words, is not the same as publicly declaring a belief.  That's exactly what your statistics tell us as well.  The language of BLPCAT has to change if we want this to stick and I'm 100% behind doing so for the record.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject's beliefs or sexual orientation need to be relevant to their notable activities or public life
I think this needs to be emphasised more, hence a new subheading although others have referred to this before. There's a strange tendency to ignore this bit of our policy. Unless someone's beliefs have clearly influenced their notable activities/public life, they should be categorised, listed, or info-boxed by their beliefs. This is flaunted in many, many articles, and I'd like to see it taken more seriously. It is just as relevant to articles mentioning religions as it is to this list. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree here too, but my first reaction to that part of the guideline was to squirm because of the ambiguity of the guideline. Who judges relevance?  In the example Jayen brings up certain publications keep on labeling a politician as "atheist" in public, seemingly for political reasons.  These publications are clearly wanting us to believe that the religious beliefs of the politician they are reporting to are relevant to their notable activities or public life.  In fact, even though the politician has not chosen this for himself, one could argue that his opposition has made his beliefs relevant to his public life and that this is easily measurable and verifiable.  What do we do in such a situation?  This is just one example that illustrates how tricky that part of the policy is to implement.  It relies on a heavier dose of interpretation than I'm comfortable with presently.  I agree with it's aims, but I can see why it is easier for most editors to overlook it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, when lists of people like this one are compiled a 'heavy dose of interpretation' is inevitable. Probably a good reason for discouraging them. I'm uncertain why they are so popular in the first place, given their arbitrariness and incompleteness. I'd say that if we are to accept such lists at all, it is down to those compiling them to ensure they meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and if this is 'tricky' in a particular case, then the person under consideration should not be on the list, per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page". In this case, what has to be proven is that the inclusion of the person on the list is not in fact in breach of WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a matter that extends way beyond this specific issue. Because there are a number of arguments; for example if someone identifies as an atheist, but it is not a significant aspect of their life (i.e. it is simply their belief and is not involved with why they are notable) does it count to be included? I've always argued that, where non-controversial, it is necessary to record these aspects of their life; because we aim for a complete and balanced biography (recall; notability relates to the entire articles existence, there is a much lower bar of "significance" for article content). BLPCAT and other aspects of BLP policy do not preclude recording "X calls himself an Atheist", just cautions the use of categories or inclusion in lists. If you read the talk page archives of this page Jimbo actually stepped in and argued that we should make it a list of notable atheists - i.e. those notable for their atheism. Such a criteria is going to be hard/subjective to judge - but it is probably what BLPCAT recommends. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree absolutely that it "extends way beyond this specific issue". It has to be seen in the broader context of a world where data-gathering is used for all sorts of purposes other than the one originally intended by the person compiling it. Many of these uses have the potential to be harmful to the individual about whom the data is gathered. I'd assume that it should not be Wikipedias job to make such data-gathering easier. Individuals, even notable ones, have a right to privacy where their beliefs, sexual orientation and other personal issues have no consequence to outsiders. BLPCAT seems to be based on this assumption, and enforces (not 'recommends') it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT has to be the most unenforced part of policy we have. I had a quick look through Category:American Roman Catholics the other week, and out of the first 200 entries I found 39 out of 82 living people were inappopriately categorised. When you also add on the fact that probably 15-25% of the living people who were appopriately categorised were Catholic priests/bishops/etc, it becomes even more worrying. There are probably thousands upon thousands of violations of BLPCAT right now, it really does need a major cleanup effort if it's going to actually be policy. 2 lines of K 303  13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Every time I've looked at one of these lists I've also easily found people who were inappropriately categorised. Maybe we should get up a working party? Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be simplest not to have such categories (be it for atheists, Christians or lions) - and living people should certainly be excluded. A category of "Catholic religious figures" might, in contrast, be appropriate. Feketekave (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral page move
User:Nick Graves has now unilaterally moved the list(s) to a new title, and re-added Mililband and Gillard based on his page move. I do not think this is an appropriate way to solve the problem under current discussion. In fact I actually don't think it solves the problem either.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are concerned about listing people as atheists who might object to being called atheists (despite confirmed non-belief in deities), a more inclusive name for the article is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it does not solve the problem, but to revert to its former name would certainly make the problem worse. My unilateral (bold) move of the article is a precaution more consistent with protecting BLP than to leave the article as formerly named while discussion continues. Gris, there are many more like Miliband and Gillard who have been listed for quite some time. The consensus that developed at the list prior to opening of this discussion was to be inclusive. My reversion and page move are consistent with that consensus for inclusiveness. Nick Graves (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The consensus that developed at the list prior to opening of this discussion was to be inclusive". Possibly. Of no relevance however, as policy cannot be ignored 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Andy. Which is why I moved the list to a more inclusive name. Weren't we concerned about living people being listed as atheists when they hadn't specifically used that label for themselves? Nick Graves (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wikilawyering Nick. The main concern here has been with self-identification, which is not in anyway solved by your page move.  Does Miliband refer to himself as a "nontheist" or "agnostic"?  I don't think so.  Please revert yourself in good faith while the conversation is ongoing.  You do not own the list.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick, you may have been involved in discussions over "living people being listed as atheists when they hadn't specifically used that label for themselves", but as I'm sure you are well aware, the debate has moved well beyond that. Please revert, and then discuss the issues here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the new name opens a whole new issue with inclusion on the list, how to list people in a way that reflects their own choice of label, whether it allows us to work with people who are not self-identified etc. Plus we have, then, issues with whether to include the many religions that are non-theist and whether it is logical/correct to list them besides Atheist. To put it into perspective this would be like having List of people following a religion. Which was the main reason for resisting a move to nob-theism as a title. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Tim. I think there are a myriad of reasons why this is not a good idea and ought to be discussed first.  Nick has made it clear on his talk page that he will not self-revert.  I am going to revert him.Griswaldo (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no 'issue' over whether a rename "allows us to work with people who are not self-identified". This is expressly forbidden by WP:BLPCAT. The only possible issue is how strictly the requirement to only include subjects who's beliefs (or lack thereof) are relevant to their notable activities should be interpreted. AS I've already said, WP:PROVEIT applies here in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the page moves. I hope that Nick will engage in discussion about them at the appropriate talk page, or here instead of move warring.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The list was renamed to 'nontheists' some time ago. I moved it back to atheists on the basis of WP:NAME and what I saw as a BLP violation in calling people who self-identified as atheists nontheists, and discussion confirmed that that was appropriate. Nick Graves seems to have taken the opportunity here to overrule that discussion. Not a good idea, and I agree with AndyTheGrump that this has no effect on the BLP issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Doug, the renaming I did was not back to the old name (List of nontheists), and addressed the concerns of that earlier discussion. When the list was earlier renamed List of atheists, none of the participants who were so concerned about atheists being offended at being called nontheists did anything to sort out the several nonbelievers in deities listed who might object to being called atheists. I find it bizarre that you say that the name of the list has no effect on the BLP issue, as it was that very concern that precipitated your earlier move of the article.


 * If it's a BLP violation to list living people as atheists who have not publicly identified themselves as such, then either the name needs to change, or the articles need to be blanked using " " while the entries are sorted through. Inexplicably, this discussion's participants seem to prefer a more exclusive and potentially connotation-laden identifier in the list name during ongoing discussion than a more inclusive and neutral set of identifiers. I'm not going to fight it, but given the relatively clear consensus that BLP violations are occurring, the latter interim solution (blank and sort) is, at the very least, in order. Any volunteers? Nick Graves (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not expressed any opinion on the name - this isn't what is currently under contention. Yes, the lists need blanking: I'd do this myself, but as a newbie at Wikipedia editing, I'd be afraid I'd make a mess of it. Perhaps someone else will do the honours?


 * As for 'sorting' the list, that as always is the responsibility of those who wish to add people to it: I'd recommend not doing this until it is clear exactly what criteria are being used, and having ensured that such criteria do not breach WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't need to be blanked. People need to just start going down the lists, finding the living persons and verifying.  If they fail verification delete those entries.Griswaldo (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the activists and educators list right now.Griswaldo (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to note that the source given for David Miliband is woefully weak for a listing like this. It is a throwaway line written by a journalist, not something he said himself, and not something that - based on the surrounding text in that article - was the point of the article.  Arguably, if there were a whole article on the issue, with thorough proof provided by the journalist, then this listing would be appropriate.  Here, it isn't.
 * Let's not be afraid to raise the question of POV-pushing - a desire to make as many people into "atheists" as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jimbo Wales raises an important point (well I would say that, grovel, grovel...), The very existence of such lists can create a real locus for POV-pushing. I'll find all the atheist 'good guys' and someone else will find the atheist bad guys, and then we'll have a race to see who can throw the list out of whack first. Not a very encyclopaedic activity, but difficult to legislate against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never understood that concern about POV pushing.  Let's say some famous author publicly  says "I am a homosexual", yet the homosexuality is not a major part of their public life or writings.  Can that author be included in the List of LGBT writers?   I think the answer is "yes".  Inclusion is factually accurate, and helps the encyclopedia provide information to readers.  If a gay person looks at the List article and finds encouragement that hundreds of writers were gay, is that a bad thing?    How can a fact be POV?  Is there some opposing view to "author XYZ is gay"?    --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think the answer is "yes", but BLP policy clearly states "no". If you think the policy is wrong, you should try to get it changed, not ignore it. The fact that BLP policy was misapplied in the first place is the reason this debate is occurring, and nothing we could decide here about what we think policy 'should be' would stop it occurring again. We cannot overrule policy by consensus. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Im curious: what was the situation that gave rise to the policy? That is what I dont understand.  If some editor added 100s of persons to a LGBT list who where not LGBT, the Verifiability policy would be sufficient to remove them.  What episode led to the " must be relevant to their notable activities or public life" requirement?   Also, it seems that if the person made a public pronouncement, and it was significant enough for a biographer to repeat it, that alone makes it "relevant". --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the precise reasoning and history for the policy, though I can see why it was arrived at: people become 'notable' for what they do to establish their notability. Other information about them (particularly of a personal nature) isn't automatically 'notable'. This is basically a presumption of the right to privacy of living individuals (a right which incidentally is protected by law in some countries: If I was to compile a list of 'notable gays', store it on a database on my PC, and make it available to others, I might well fall foul of the UK Data Protection Act 1998). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have more questions, but I'll pose them on the WP:BLP talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Although lists are historically more inclusive. I think there is reasonable precedent for including a larger list of atheists; it at least needs discussing one way or another. BLPCAT is very brief and I don't think it is particularly clear whether it being part of their notability is a hard and fast rule or part of the criminal example (an example I agree with). Then we get into a major issue over whether their atheism is part of their notability (for example, Dawkins as an atheist writer) or whether it is notable because of who they are (i.e. the fact they are declared atheist is a notable fact about them - i.e. in the case of a prominent public figure). Someone needs to open a central discussion I think --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

 * Some of the sub-pages seem to have been moved also. Can they go back? At least in the interim, it's a bit confusing.
 * We need to agree one way or another on an inclusion criteria and list name; I support the current name and a more BLP-friendly inclusion criteria.
 * It might be worth discussion ways to re-sort the list, and cut down the number of sub-lists. It's a bit unwieldy to maintain and condensing things might make the job a little more sane :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria don't just need to be "more BLP-friendly". They need to conform to WP:BLPCAT: all of it, including the requirement that "subject's beliefs... are relevant to their notable activities or public life". This is not an issue for debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The names of the lists should remain "List of Atheists" - that naming issue has been widely discussed in the past in the Talk page of that article, and the naming debate is not relevant to the BLP issue.  The requirement for sourcing in these List articles has always been enforced.  I'd say over 50% of the persons added into the list are removed within a day because the source is insufficient, or because they are not atheists.  The BLPCAT issue does need more consideration, to be sure.  But that is a simple matter of identifying living persons that have not made a big deal of their atheism and removing them .. although that is a bit of a subjective call.  Looking at the lists of LGBT person (List of LGBT writers for example) it is clear that the BLPCAT policy is interpreted fairly liberally, that is, WP has erred on the side of inclusion. The atheist lists should be treated no differently.   --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but just because you can find an example of a 'liberal' interpretation of rules that you think harmless, doesn't mean other 'liberal' interpretations may not be. Since I don't want to be accused of canvassing, I'll not cite any examples, but believe me, they exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But to help give newcomers some guidance on the BLPCAT policy, can you give some List articles that are in conformance with the policy (i.e. have had "non relevant" persons removed) and some Lists that have not had that done?  You say we should not use List of LGBT writers  as a model ... but how can we know that?   Maybe seeing the "before" and "after" versions of a List article (and the associated Talk page discusssions) will shed light on the matter. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice
I propose we create a coloured Editnotice for all the lists of atheists, making clear to editors that living persons require self-identification rather than identification by third parties. -- JN 466  06:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a draft edit notice:

Will this do? Editors would see this when they click Edit on any of the Atheist lists. -- JN 466  12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal has merit. But why limit it to lists of atheists? There's now a debate about List of Jewish actors, where few of the sources are self-identifications. In some cases, religion and sexual orientation can be hard to determine by objective standards, unlike nationality or race, so self-identification is necessary. I suggest making this notice more generic and adding it to every applicable list article.   Will Beback    talk    13:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with you there; we could use it as a boilerplate and adapt it to similar cases. The situation with the Jewish categories is that it is unclear whether they are ethnic or religious categories. (I actually replied to an old post of yours the other day at Category_talk:American_Jews.) Per current BLPCAT status, ethnic origin does not require self-identification and can be sourced with third-party sources; there have been proposals at BLP talk to change this. I don't know how best to solve the ambiguity; perhaps you and Jayjg can come up with some ideas. -- JN 466  17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is insufficient. As WP:BLPCAT clearly states: "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". Quite explicit: Unless a persons Atheism is of relevance to their notable activities, they cannot be included on the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, that applies to categories, not lists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do you compile a list, without deciding whether a particular candidate fits the category for inclusion? In any case WP:LISTPEOPLE is completely explicit here, even to the extent of actually mentioning atheism: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud." AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy, you are confusing two meanings of the word category. One is "category" in the technical Wikipedia sense. The other is using category to mean "satisfies a certain predicate." These are not the same thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The section heading of WP:BLPCAT is Categories, lists and navigation templates. In short, it applies to all three, not just categories. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tha's a good point. Not from the title (which doesn't matter) but regarding later in the section where it says that "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation" which strongly supports that interpretation. It appears that Andy may be correct. But if he is correct, it is a correctness which is completely coincidental, having nothing to do with his argument about LISTPEOPLE. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, really it all follows from WP:BLP itself. Yworo (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right Andy, the requirement that it should be relevant to their notable activities is something I should have included as well. It occurred to me later, but I didn't have time to put it in, and anyway wanted to see what sort of feedback the proposal would get. I've added it now; please check the wording. Thanks. -- JN 466  15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this template intended solely for lists of atheists? I'd assume that a similar editnotice would be applicable for all religiously-categorised lists, as the policy is the same, and only applying it to atheists would seem to imply some sort of exception.


 * I see that JN466 states that "ethnic origin does not require self-identification and can be sourced with third-party sources". I thought that in regards to BLPCAT for living persons, self-identification was mandatory, even under present rules, or if it wasn't it was certainly covered by Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality guidelines, which are expected to be followed with "occasional exceptions", which presumably have to be justified per BLP burden of evidence requirements. I'd also suggest that the term "ethnic origin" is misleading in any case, as it isn't the same thing as "ethnicity" Actually one can't self-identify one's "origins": "I'm Albanian" is a statement about oneself, whereas "my parents came from Albania" is a statement about them, not you. This may seem a minor point, but it is clearly relevant in relation to several of the debates currently going on regarding BLP categorisations and lists. The term "ethnic origins" is generally best avoided anyway, as it implies a particular POV: that "ethnicities" are eternal constants, which is demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular editnotice is for the 16 atheist lists that we have, but I fully agree that we should create equivalent editnotices for other lists of that type. BLPCAT's self-identification requirement presently only applies to religion and sexuality. There have been proposals recently to expand that to ethnicity (see BLP talk page), which I support, given the neverending problems. Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality does not require self-identification for ethnic categories; as far as I can see, it just says "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references". -- JN 466  08:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. "Ethnic origin" (e.g. "his grandparents emigrated from Albania") and "nationality" (e.g. "he is a French citizen") can be sourced to reliable third party sources, but "ethnicity" (e.g. "he is Italian-American") cannot, and should require self-identification.  The difference between these three is not a minor point at all in my book.  "Ethnicity" really ought to be added, per many of the proposals at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, to the language of WP:BLPCAT.  That said I support Jayen's edit notice and would also support a similar one across religious categories.Griswaldo (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, but we have to do the work to get ethnicity included in BLPCAT first, at BLP talk. -- JN 466  18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the proposed wording of the Edit notice, for a few reasons: (1) Relevance to public activities:  not clear enough that that rule only applies to living persons;  (2) the requirement of the specific word "atheist" is not required by any WP policy.  Such a "magic word" is not required for LGBT, etc.  (3) the wording "notable for their atheism" is not equivalent to the WP:BLPCAT policy of "relevant to public activities ...".  We should just state the BLPCAT wording and leave it at that.  There is no reason for us, here to interpret the BLPCAT wording, especially since it may change.  Safest is to refer the editor to BLPCAT.   Also:  There does appear to be some discrepancy between Categories and Lists regulations, and the "over-categorization" concern does not apply to lists.  Does BLPCAT really apply to lists?  Finally:  Agree with suggestions that a more generic template for all BLPCAT articles (religion, LGBT, etc)  is best:  otherwise we end up with lots of duplication and overlap.   --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording "notable for their atheism" is actually taken verbatim from WP:LISTPEOPLE. -- JN 466  01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. But that LISTPEOPLES guideline states "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. "  That is rather incomprehensible.   The wording "all of them are notable for their atheism." is part of an example, not the primary guideline.  The guideline is "selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category " but it is hard to say what that means:  is the list being selected?  or the people being selected?   What does it mean to be "important in that category"?  Why is Freud acceptable, since he was not especially famous as an atheist?   The fact is that 99% of people-lists in WP do not  limit themselves to people notable due to their status in the list.  I presume this is one of those "its all hosed up and we can't get consensus to fix it" things.    --Noleander (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not very well informed here. Freud's atheism has been very widely commented on in reliable sources: What the guideline says is precisely that people should be notable for their atheism. They "should be selected for importance/notability in that category", i.e. they should be selected because they are important within the category of atheists. Some editors take a stamp-collecting approach to lists and categories, but that is not the intent of these lists. You're right that the beginning of the sentence was poorly formed; I've edited it. -- JN  466  14:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an ambiguity in the above interpretation of the LISTPEOPLES guideline: (1) the statement "[the] people should be notable for their atheism" means that the atheism caused them to be notable;  (2) whereas the statement "[include a person] because they are important within the category of atheists" means that we take the universe of all atheists, then find the persons that are most notable (for any reason) and   put them in the List.  The latter interpretation is generally followed in WP's religion lists and LGBT lists.  The former interpretation is used for most occupation/profession lists.   No big deal: it is just a guideline, but  I'm a bit surprised that these guidelines/policies are several years old and yet still seem to be the source of much confusion and consequent debate on the Talk page.  Can't the ArbCom just appoint some committee of a dozen respected editors to go study this for a month and come back with a recommendation on how to re-word these guidelines? --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording above to say, "notable as atheists" rather than "notable for their atheism", to avoid the ambiguity you are drawing attention to. It's like you say; while Freud's atheism was notable, he was primarily notable as the founder of psychoanalysis. Does this help? I prefer the fuller editnotice above compared to your shortened version below. If we put the salient points into the editnotice itself, this makes for a better chance that editors will take these points on board than if they first have to navigate away to two policy/guideline pages. -- JN 466  12:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Brief Edit Notice
Here is a suggestion for a Edit Notice for all Religion/orientation lists. I tried to (1) make it small (because it hogs space at the top of the Edit page); (2) directly quote the policy/guideline but do not add supply interpretations (which would be subject to dispute); (3) make it generic for all religion/orientation lists so we don't need to re-invent the wheel: --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the relative merits of the latter (green) text vs the text at top?   I think the proposal at the top is way too verbose; and adds too much interpretation/extrapolation to the policies/guidelines.  I think the green proposal is best for all religion/belief/atheist/orientation lists.   I favor a single EditNotice, rather than specific EditNotices for each sort of belief (Methodist, Agnostic, Atheist, Catholic, Jewish, etc).   EditNotices should not try to expand on the policies, but simply make sure editors are aware of them.   The Policies speak for themselves. The proposal at top seems to add a lot of opinion and interpretation.   EditNotices are not policies and do not undergo the same kind of scrutiny and review as policies; so EditNotices cannot add interpretation to policies.     EditNotices can only be edited by Admins; because they are "off limits" to mere mortals we need to be very careful what goes in there: it will be very hard to change afterwards (contrast with textual info at the top of a List article: any editor can edit that) ...  which is yet another reason for keeping the EditNotice (1) terse; and (2) just link to the policies.  --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander, on reflection I think you have a point. How about if I create the editnotice with the graphical design as above, but with your text? (Except I would propose "Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list" – i.e. "both" instead of "those".) -- JN 466  23:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be fine. I have no preference on color/layout.  --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done the editnotices for the lists of atheists (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_atheists_(surnames_A_to_B)), and will continue with the other lists based on religious belief and sexual orientation. -- JN 466  10:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also do religions and orientations
JN: A couple of questions:  (1) Can you do all the other lists for religion and orientations? It looks like you've singled-out atheism, so far. (2) Is there a way to have a single shared edit notice for all religion/orientation lists, so if the text were to be changed it is only changed in one place? Or is the text replicated for each article it is in? I'm not too sure about Edit Notices, but there may be a way to have multiple article share one text. For example, maybe Template:Editnotices/Page/List_of_atheists_(surnames_C_to_D) could just use #REDIRECT to the common text? If we don't do that, it will be very difficult to tweak the text in the future. --13:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created the templates Template:Editnotice for lists of people by sexual orientation and Template:Editnotice for lists of people by religious belief and am transcluding them into the editnotices I create, per Editnotice. I'm short on wiki-time this time of the year, but have done some more work and will work my way through the other lists gradually. Any help welcome. -- JN 466  15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a page in my userspace listing all the editnotices I have created so far, with these templates transcluded in them. If anyone else creates some editnotices, you are welcome to add them to User:Jayen466/BLP_Edit_notices so we can keep some kind of overview. You are also welcome to add lists to that page that still need editnotices to be created for them; there is a section for that at User:Jayen466/BLP_Edit_notices. -- JN 466  15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)