Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107

Charlie Sheen

 * - Outside intervention needed - Recent edits to the article Charlie Sheen include language such as "Sheen had been partying at the home with several porn stars, including Kacey Jordan whose now deleted tweets alerted the media". Cs32en   Talk to me  23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cs32en removed ALL of the material about Sheen's recent hospitalization, entry into rehab, and effect on the show Two and a Half Men. I reverted the removal saying it should be discussed, and I contributed my comments on the Talk page. No other editors have joined the discussion. I have no problem with scrutinizing each sentence in the paragraph to make sure it conforms to reliable sources and that it otherwise warrants inclusion, but the wholesale removal of the material clearly was not warranted. Cs32en has since reverted again, removing the material.


 * Sheen has a long history of problems that have made the news. They are noteworthy in and of themselves, AND they affect his career. Before this material was added, there was (and still is) material on his problems with Denise Richards, Brooke Mueller, his voluntary entry into rehab in February 2010, and the Plaza Hotel incident. What makes the latest material different to justify its removal?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article already documents these aspects of Sheen's personal life. The urge to cover every single detail of it is driven by sensationalism, in my view. I have indeed removed the text, because for BLP-sensitive material, consensus should be built before adding text to an article. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The article already documents these aspects of Sheen's personal life." My point exactly, and what makes the new material any different? Was the other material vetted for consensus before being added? Wikipedia isn't being sensationalistic in adding the material. Sheen's rather sensational behavior is simply being reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the other material was indeed being discussed before the current version of it has been added to the article. I do not think that the information would be false or would not be verifiable. Those that want to go into each and every details of Sheen's personal life should add more content about Sheen's career, though, in order to maintain a balanced article that covers the respective aspects of Sheen's life according to their due weight, and consistent with the BLP guideline. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not, or at least should not be, a two-class system in which some peoples' privacy is being protected, while the privacy of others is not. Cs32en  Talk to me  02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't in general protect the privacy of celebrities against information which has been widely reported in reliable sources. "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * However, we do in general protect BLPs against excessively focusing on the private life of people. There is no doubt that the information is sourced, but as with any other article, sourced content may well be WP:UNDUE in relation to the other aspects of the article. In that case, the article becomes biased, in violation of the BLP guideline. Cs32en   Talk to me  05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This biography may be a good reference point for what content is due or undue in the article. Cs32en   Talk to me  05:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is also being discussed on the article's talk page here. Shearonink (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at the talk page for specifics but in general I would say that an article should reflect the best quality sources while at the same time maintaining a balance and giving a full biography. Giving undue weight to criticism or scandals is not appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:WELLKNOWN example: " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." what you have now is the lede saying the show has been delayed as a result of the current rehab...to which there is no reference in the body. The delay of the show and the rehab are in today's New York Times.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Sheen's television show has gone into hiatus as a result of his going into rehab is extremely notable as it has been covered in numerous newspapers and other media sources. The CBS network even issued a statement confirming this to be the case.  Who Sheen had been partying with, or what they had been doing, is not necessarily relevant to this encyclopedia; I don't know how reliable the sources for that are, or whether the people quoted on those subjects have an agenda to promote. But the career-related aspects of this story -- in which production has been shut down on the current top-rated comedy on television -- are certainly relevant to the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia had been around at the time, would Mackenzie Phillips being fired from One Day at a Time in 1980 have been left out of her article? Would we have omitted the fact that Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer had shut down when Stacy Keach was imprisoned in England? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert T. Craig (scholar)

 * - Requesting assistance - I created a new BLP article on the communication Theorist Robert T. Craig (scholar) and additional assistance would be appreciated. I have already posted to Wikipedia project philosophy and am not sure if this is the right place to be posting this request.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems carefully written and sourced, and at first blush the guy should survive a proposed deletion as notable based on awards, criticism and coverage. Did you have specific questions? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * right now I am the only one who has contributed to it, and it reads great to me...but I wrote it. I guess I am looking for input on if it is readable, and meets GA standards, and was kinda wondering if anyone else would like to help tackle this one (wikipedia is a collaborative project after all).Coffeepusher (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it quickly and its about a field which is unfamilar but it seems appropriately and clearly written and sourced and therefore a respectable addition to Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

 * - Requesting assistance with Prem Rawat - Someone claiming to be Jimbo Wales has inserted (without discussion) that Prem Rawat has been termed a "cult leader according to anti-cult writings" with the edit summary "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know". "Jimbo" cites Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes as the authorities for this "important" info. Regrettably Bob Larson is a Christian evangelist who preaches against "sexually suggestive lyrics, Eastern religious mysticism, and antisocial behavior of rock musicians" and is justly famous for "performing exorcisms of callers on the air". And Jimbo's other expert, Ron Rhodes, is the author of such classics as "The Wonder of Heaven: A Biblical Tour of Our Eternal Home", "Homosexuality: What You Need to Know" and "Correcting the Cults: Expert Responses to Their Scripture Twisting". Perhaps it was Larry Sanger playing a joke?Momento (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's Jimbo. He's commented on his talk page that he doesn't intend to edit the article again. I see someone has removed one word of his addition (so far). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always disappointing to see how reluctant people are, particularly admins, to remove negative material from Prem Rawat. If any editor put "termed a messenger for peace" in the lead without discussion and cited the sort of biased sources Jimbo used, it would be reverted in minutes.Momento (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Momento's topic ban includes "all related discussions". He should not be starting noticeboard threads.   Will Beback    talk    01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What even if they discover libels in the articles? John lilburne (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an exception to every rule. But there's no assertion of libel here. However Momento's own statements might approach defamation...   Will Beback    talk    13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Masnick
Article seems to have been subject to a subtle form of vandalism by someone with a grudge, judging by the "Masnick Effect" "jab" made in the final paragraph (seen here) and the unsatisfactory reason for adding this paragraph given in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadialSkid (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This statement, which an IP user acknowledged on the Talk page is point scoring, has now been added and reverted a number of times in the last few days. I reverted it again, but it probably will be re-added quickly. I also don't think this guy is very notable (the point the IP was trying to make). Page would benefit from an admin's attention, and might either be nominated for deletion or protected. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is now semi-protected for awhile. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Yarber
Edit war continues, with defamatory information posted and removed by diverse editors. The strange thing now is that no revision is listed in the history but it has been changed to include the libel. When the page is edited, the libel is nowhere to be found. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The material to which you are referring was removed by another editor as WP:UNDUE. Not sure what you mean by the statements about the edit history, as the add/revert/edit trail seems clear.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Soham murders
The "Soham Murders" article notes that Maxine Carr "won an injunction on 24 February, 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs." Yet the article publishes a photograph of Maxine Carr. I believe the article is (1) endangering Maxine Carr and other women of similar appearance, and (2) in contempt of the court injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodnala (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the photo and watchlisted the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Leanne Clare
This article about a Australian judge and former prosecutor needs some attention IMO. The entire article is basically one long WP:CRITICISM section and appears to me to have serious issues with WP:UNDUE. The article appears to be fairly stable and the claims are referenced, but I would suggest there should be a more balanced portrayal of this subject who after all is notable not for being a criminal but for being a judge in good standing. Note, I know nothing at all about the subject other than what is the Wikipedia article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dealt with by . -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Gottfried
IPs are inserting various Jewish categories into the Paul Gottfried article, based initially on this website, and more recently on this blog. I've warned them that if they continued, I will be protecting the article. Is either source adequate or reliable enough for the insertion of these categories? Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They can't add cats unless there is content cites reliably and discussing the issue in the article, as I see you told them, WP:BLPCAT. The Jewcy article is self written, I think we can accept that, as pretty certain? As a WP:SELFPUB if there is confirmation that it is, then a comment about himself might be acceptable. He seems to write quite a bit there http://www.jewcy.com/author/paul_gottfried and he says in the article -"in my early thirties, I belonged to a synagogue in Westfield, New Jersey," .. and talks about his parents generation of Jews and says "my fellow jews" - the other link is not a wp reliable source for anything. The other one http://www.jewcy.com/ we have only around 20 to 25 external links to BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not its accurate, or the source reliable, since the article says nothing about it, it doesn't appear to be in any way relevant to his notability, does it? Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Next source that is written by profesor: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Gottfried.html and another by far left group: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/irreconcilable-differences?page=0,1 --Dezidor (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty rich. The "professor" you refer to is none other than Kevin B. MacDonald in the Occidental Observer - quite obviously not a source one can use for BLPs about anyone, particularly alleged Jews. As for the SPLC, it only says he has "Jewish ancestry", not that he is Jewish, and regarding it being a "far left group", please take your irrelevant POV battles elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jayjg says, its not related to his notability, if it was there would be reliable sources discussing it, he has written about Zionism but there is nothing reliable discussing any connection to that and his ancestry, adding and he has some Jewish ancestry is a pretty worthless vague statement. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OTOH that is pretty much the same with all these stupid categories and associated stupid lists. For example List of Jewish American biologists and physicians] Category:Jewish_American_scientists hardly any are notable because they are Jewish. But you could just as well pick on List of Jews in sports or Category:Jewish cricketers, it seems to be enough that they self identify as such to be included in the nonsense. Are we to assume that different rules apply here: that when someone that identifies as Jewish, opposes Neoconservatives, and writes about Jews critical of Zionism that his Jewishness must be denied? John lilburne (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're all pretty much the same. No-one is being "denied" anything. Feel free to discuss and/or enforce BLP policy about other individuals in the relevant articles and threads. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is being "denied" and "hidden". I agree with John Lilburne, your reasoning clearly follows Wikipedia guidelines, Jayjg's interpretation does not. It's relevant to Paul Gottfried's bio, he often discusses it in his columns -- and it does not violate WP:BLP.Unitrin (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that there does appear to be double standards at work. Here we have an agreement that regardless of a RS for ethnicity, the ethnicity should be a part of the persons notability before it is acknowledged in categories and lists. Yet further down this page we have a the reverse argument that it is enough for there to be a RS on ethnicity. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety on the issue, but I'm finding it hard to square the two positions. John lilburne (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In Gottfried's case both standards are met and WP:BLP is satisfied.Unitrin (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not surprised that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn´t like MacDonald. The next source is article written by Gottfried: The chance that such radicalized Protestants, who live in their own social bubble, would have picked up their lunacies from any Jew (me perhaps?) is next to nil. --Dezidor (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't "like" or "dislike" either. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised either that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn't like MacDonald who, despite the hate directed towards him by some Jewish people, is a tenured college professor at a notable public American university. Paul Gottfried is Jewish, that's a fact, and it shouldn't be hidden.  It's relevant and instructive in his positioning vis-a-vis Jewish Neoconservatives who he often writes about.  This is helpful:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#1987:_The_Catholic_University_of_America  Unitrin (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Motiur Rahman Nizami
The article Motiur Rahman Nizami is on my watchlist. I forget why. There seems to have have been some recent edit warring/section blanking shenanigans. I had a quick look and noticed the "blp issue" section on the talk page which didn't give me a good feeling. The article probably needs a few more eyes on it as it involves things like war crimes allegations, rape, extortion, loot, capturing/killing/massacre, and such like.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, serious allegations sourced to regional newspapers and a protest on file from the subject. I'll keep an eye and also see if I can find some other sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's who directories.
It happened to be mentioned in an AFD how International Biographical Centre was used to bolster the bio in question. I thought I'd check for other users, and was surprised to find many uses in biographies. Most seemed to be legit bios, but used this bad source, which makes fixing them difficult. Some used their mention as an example of achievement, which makes notability questionable. I was hoping others might want to also take a look. Apparently, people pay to get their bios in, so this, and similar publications shouldn't be used as a source. --Rob (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * -International Biographical Centre - usage - the site only seems to be linked to two BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The references exist in many articles, but are overwhelmingly done without any link. As far as I can tell, the publications used are all in print form, not free online.  As far as I can tell, the person who is "honoured" has to buy an (expensive) physical book in order to see their biography (that's how they make the money).  The fact it's offline is probably a reason these references are generally not checked.  Editors see the reference, and just trust it's legit, since it's not pratical to physically get a copy.  Examples include V. Venkatachalam, Gunnar Kvaran, George Douglas Hutton Bell, Stephen Benatar, and many more.  If you do the Google search I linked to above, and go past the initial results (which include some legit uses), you'll find this is a major problem.  Sometimes it's the sole source of a biography.  Sometimes one of the claims of notability is a made-up award/honour.  But, it's hard to fix, because many(most?) of the people are really notable, and some facts supported by this source are verifiable elsewhere, there are other real awards, and there are other sources in the article.  So, it's not a simple matter of removing the claims based on this.  --Rob (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mechele Linehan
I think there are some BLP issues with this article. Her only "claim to fame" is the connection to a murder for which her original conviction was overturned. WP:CRIME would seem to suggest that the article be about the crime and not her. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a name change there to the crime and away from the one event living person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - The death of Kent Leppink ... ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved it as there were no objections and edited the content a bit to move the emphasis away from the living person and towards the death - article still needs a good look over as we don't want to be cited in the retrial as having had an effect on the outcome through the wide publication of our article and any disputable uncited accusations it in, please review - Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me; carefully phrased and sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - Right, thanks to you Jonathon and to User:Bbb23 and to User:Active Banana for bringing this issue to the noticeboard and for working to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

nabeel hussain
hi, I mr imtiaz hussain father of nabeel hussain would like to state for the record that you have the d.o.b. of my son incorrect nabeel's d.o.b. is 09.04.1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd need to get independent confirmation from a reliable published source to change it, unfortunately. I'll look into this, and see if I can find one myself.
 * The article needs looking at in any case. Nabeel Hussain seems to have been acquitted at the trial, but the article doesn't actually say this! AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the sources can't agree as gives the same day and month but a different year from the above date given by his father while the original source has a different month and different day from what his father gave but the same year, I have just removed the DOB completely. I have added mention of his acquital in 2007 but the article still needs work. Sadly this sort of lack of maintenance for topics of marginal interest is not uncommon Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Hussain was acquitted, and appears not to be notable for any other event, I'm fairly certain the appropriate procedure will be to delete the article. This wants further investigation though, as there may also be articles about other acquitted persons which also require deletion. I'd appreciate advice on this from others though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the article, at least I added his acquittal and removed some extraneous detail about the charges. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The acquittal has previously been removed from the article on the basis that it related to a different person with the same name . The BBC (the same source used for the original birth date) quotes a 1985 birth date for that story. January   (talk)  13:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops sorry should have look at the cases more carefully (I don't particularly care about the birth dates since they could be wrong). Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe a redirect to 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This AfD discussion lists 20 BLPs for those apparently involved in the investigation, of which only 3 seem to have been deleted. I think we need to check the status of the rest, and start a single AfD for those acquitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, See about this guy's convinction. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This gets even more confusing. I wonder, given the fact that we have found two Nabeel Hussain's tried under different terrorism cases, with one found guilty, and the other one innocent, whether we need a hatnote on the guilty Hussain's article referring to the innocent one, making clear he was acquitted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't think this meets WP:PERP. His role seems relatively minor, he was described as a "backroom boy". January   (talk)  11:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Other suspects
There are currently articles for Mohammed Usman Saddique and Umair Hussain whose cases were dismissed, and Cossor Ali, Abdul Waheed (suspected aircraft bomb plotter) and Mohammed Yasar Gulzar who were found not guilty. Mehran Hussain whose case was also dismissed is a redirect. Articles on others who were not charged were deleted (Tayib Rauf, Waseem Kayani, Amin Asmin Tariq.

According to this BBC article three of the original suspects (Nabeel Hussain, Abdul Muneem Patel and Shamin Mohammed Uddin) were convicted as part of the investigation but "not convicted of offences relating to the airlines bomb plot itself". I'm having difficulty confirming the status of Shazad Khuram Ali and Assan Abdullah Khan, the latter article conflictingly says that he is being held without charge and has been released without charge (unsourced). The others all appear to have been convicted of substantial charges. January  (talk)  20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard King (referee)
Can someone take a look at the talk page and make any clean up that is necessary.

The individual was recently caught doing something embarassing, but was only "cautioned" - no fine no penalty.

His past history however also contains unflattering incidents which have riled some footie fans to go past reporting what has happened and instead rant and make personal attacks on the talk page etc. There is some stuff on the talk page that may not suitable to be left there per WP:BLP, but while I am comfortable with patrolling BLP content out of the article itself, I am cautious as to what people might need to legitimately put on a talk page while attempting to come to a consensus when the actions under discussion are dicey. Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note the incident was in 2005. Primarily mentioning to those wondering like me why they can't find anything about it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Munk
Following on from this thread, I raised an RFC about the weight and sourcing of the additions by which has expired with only one comment, which didn't really address the issue. Further comments on this would be appreciated. January  (talk)  10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the archived discussion here, the RFC and the Globe and Mail op ed. I think the information is reliably sourced as long as its made clear the latter is an opinion piece. Inclusion of the whole paragraph did not really offend me, but as a compromise solution it could probably be reduced to one or two sentences. One sentence compromise: "Some commentators have criticized Munk's contributions to the University on the grounds that they give him undue control over academic matters." Two sentence compromise, add the following: "One such critic cites a Memorandum of Understanding which provides that an additional $15 million will be donated if 'the Munk Foundation determines the university has achieved certain assigned objectives.'" Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

suggested addition

 * - Multan ref. books, pl add Pilgrim Shrines of India, New Delhi, 2008.  It discusses Multan.  khannaan@rediffmail.com

11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)§≤—√In the article on Multan, some additions are suggested. 1. The Tughlaq rulers of India belonged to Multan. A Tughlaq ruler's house where he was born is still pointed out. 2. Ref. books on Multan. Pl. add Pilgram Shrines of India by Amar Nath Khanna, New Delhi, 2008, as it has an article on the Sun Temple, Multan. Amar Nath Khanna, e mail  khannaan@rediffmail.com. I am an archaeologist and have written  books on the archaeology of  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and  South-east Asia. I belong to Multan City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.42.225 (talk)


 * - Hi, this noticeboard is not the correct location to request additions to articles, please see the template of handy links I have added to your talkpage and request the addition at a more correct location, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Darryl Foster
Could someone who knows policies about labeling sexuality please look at Darryl Foster article? I think it's just as bad to declare someone is an ex-gay as it would be to label them gay. The sourcing _might_ be there but shouldn't such statements be clearly cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna Sactum (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a little look and the ex gay aspect of his life does appear to be connected to his notability and self expressed, so I think it looks ok. The article is in need of a bit of wikification though some inline externals to support specific content although there are citations they are unclear. Foster says it himself - http://www.touchingadeadman.com/ -  Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Luca Barbareschi
"Always on the side of the best buyer."

Last sentence of the biography.

Also in a google search, Wikipedia's article came up with very disparaging remarks, but they were not in the article when I clicked through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacber (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - I removed the recently added uncited comment that you mentioned and watchlisted the article. As for the historic content if something specific is showing up from the article history it can be removed by an oversighing deletion - feel free to let us know here or to report at the Requests for oversight. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

 * - Request for people to Watchlist Lindsay Lohan

TMZ.com is reporting she has been charged with felony Jewelry theft. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight correction: TMZ is reporting that she will be charged, perhaps as early as Monday. IOW, it hasn't happened yet.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A great many people watch Lohan. On Wikipedia, too. :-) 675 at last count.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Alberto Montaner
CHARACTER ASSASSINATION Wikipedia handy tool for Cuban propagandists
 * BY CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/22/1693165/wikipedia-handy-tool-for-cuban.html#ixzz1D9GFckx7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.205.114 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll not comment on your individual case, not knowing enough about it, but instead address the general issue. It isn't unusual to hear claims that Wikipedia is run by this or that pressure group, or cabal, or conspiracy. I can obviously not prove that this is false (apart from anything else, I could be part of this conspiracy myself), but since whoever is allegedly behind the 'conspiracy' always seems to be the ideological opponent of whoever claims that this conspiracy exists, and since everyone from 'Jihadists' to 'Jews', and from 'Marxists' to 'Neocons' is seen to be behind the plot, I'm unconvinced. The fact is, Wikipedia seems to attract a wide range of viewpoints, and though the opinion-pushers are there, they tend to attract attention if they create too much fuss, or make their activities too obvious. There undoubtedly are biases in Wikapedia, but they are much more the result of the relatively-limited base of our general editors than any introduced by the schemes of Castro, Bin Laden, et al. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP editor confused the issue by posting an entire Miami Herald editorial. However, the gist is that there were again assertions in the article, added by IP editors, sourced to the official Cuban government-run newspaper, Granma, that Montaner works for the CIA and has been involved in violence. I just deleted these per WP:BLP. Granma is NOT a reliable source for the claim that someone works for the CIA etc. Only ghits on "Montaner CIA" go back to blogs and sites like democraticunderground.com quoting Granma; no independent investigation/confirmation in  other media. So out it goes. The article probably should be permanently semi-protected. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

jean arcelin
I don't agree with the tags inserted about jean arcelin. This articles cites different reliable sources and external pages, and has been improved recently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.170.130 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the article a little, and removed some of the tags that are now no longer relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the tag about the notability of this article. Jean arcelin is referenced in two prominent dictionary of arts, the Benezit dictionary of artists, as well as in the Delarge dictionary of arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.98.111 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Boyd Barrett
The article section entitled 'Views on Israel and Jihad' is misleading defamatory.

The section is structured in a way to induce guilt by association, with repeated hints that Mr Boyd Barrett has strong connections with Jihadists.

Shared attendance at conferences, and support for an individual's right to free speech and freedom of travel prove no such connection.

Also refusal to condemn can in no way be construed as support.

Richard Boyd Barrett has made no public statements at any time related to or mentioning Jihad. Therefore a section heading including the word Jihadists is deliberately and provocatively misleading.

The section is structured very similarly to a recent blogs and press releases by a Councillor Richard Humphreys, of the Irish labour Party, a political rival to Mr Boyd Barrett.

Therefore I contend that this article is a politicized intervention by members or supporters of a rival political party ie a ' a dirty trick' intended to defame Mr Boyd Barrett during the course of  a general election campaign.

I am asking you to remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.33.215 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the obvious POV from that section, and User:Dreadstar has semi protected the article. Others may wish to comment on whether what's now left in that section constitutes undue weight, especially in the context of an ongoing election campaign. I can't currently verify if the contents of the Irish Times articles cited back up the statements they reference. You may also wish to suggest reliable independent sources for other points of view to balance that section. A good place to do that is on the talk page for the article. If you have a possible conflict of interest then you should read WP:COI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My $.02: looks good, great improvement over what was there before. I don't think it violates WP:UNDUE in any way--Mr. Boyd Barrett's own public statements on the Middle East are being referenced in a section which is properly proportioned and not out of whack with his opinions/actions on other topics. In general as I have just commented on my user page, I find that WP:UNDUE, which is mainly a guide to the best way to keep information in an article, is too frequently used as an excuse for excluding it.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to have been changed again.Back to 'views on Israel and Jihad'. To repeat, Mr Boyd Barrett has never expressed any views on Jihad. The continual attempt to infer that he has is a blatantly politicised attempt to infer guilt by association. Again please either remove this defamatory section, or edit it to remove the bias. thank you. Dave Lordan (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Corrected to 'views on Israel and the war on terrorism'. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, and I went to all that trouble adding those two reliable sources you provided. Well, I've pointed our wine-growing friend to the talk page for the article, and I dropped him a polite note over at his talk page. Not entirely surprisingly, there was already one such polite note that someone had left for him previously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I dropped a polite note on yours. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, while we're here, There's probably other things wrong, but I haven't looked in that much detail yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in assuming his last name is Boyd Barrett, rather than just Barrett? Some of the sources seem to use it that way.
 * The article currently describes the Socialist Workers Party as "Trotskyist", without providing any references to support that. Clicking on the wikilink over to the Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) article, that article also uses that term to describe the party, and again seems wildly inadequate in references. Can you point us to some references or hint if it's correct or likely to be disputed?

he is boyd barrett, and the swp would self-describe as post-trotskyist, though neother trotskyist or post trotskyist are particularly precise definitions. dave lordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.33.215 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the reference and links to councillor richard Humpries of the irssh labour party have been removed. As I pointed out above the serious of defamatory comments being made in the article by vitculturist are remarkably similar to public statements made by that councillor, a political rival of Mr Boyd Barret. Can we find who removed those links and references, and why? Can viticulturist confirm or deny their involvement with Irish politics? Is viticuturist connected to Councillor Ricard Humphries? I wish to strongly dispute the neutarlity of viticulturist and again request that his incessant changes be removed and that he be prevented, in the interests of fairness from editing the page. Dave lordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Lordan (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to your accusations, I am not Richard Humphries, neither am I connected to him in any way. Never met the man. Furthermore, I am not a member of the Labour Party that you and your friend Richard Boyd Barrett see as a political rival. I believe that the Labour is in a different weight class from People Before Profit Alliance, so talking about rivalry here sounds really amusing. The link to Humphreys's speech was removed by myself because I wanted the article about Richard Boyd Barrett to be balanced. I didn't object to you and Demiurge1000 inserting the paragraphs you wrote into Richard Boyd Barrett. I wish Demiurge1000 took the same approach and stopped removing well sourced and important material from Richard Boyd Barrett because his actions may amount to single purpose account and will be dealt with. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, taking that one point at a time:
 * Yes the references to that council meeting were removed (by me because it was totally biased partisan political material and sourced only to the website of one of Boyd Barrett's opponents), however what was there previously is still in the article history (click "View history" at the top when you're on the article).
 * Be careful using terms like "defamatory" because Wikipedia does not tolerate anything that sounds like a legal threat. To summarise that, anyone that is taking legal action or threatening it, can't edit Wikipedia at the same time. I'm not saying you're making any such threat, just it's sometimes easy to slip into doing so.
 * We don't go round digging as to who exactly is who. You are not required to say whether you are the same Dave Lordan who is also a poet and political activist, although it might make things easier and simpler to do so if it is the case.
 * Equally viticulturist is not required to say who he is or what outside interests he has; but if his editing is strongly indicative of a conflict of interest or indeed a single purpose account then that will get dealt with.
 * You're free to look at Viticulturist's editing history (he certainly learned how to use Wikipedia very quickly at the start of his editing career) just as he is free to look at my editing history or yours. I think mine is probably less interesting. However, we don't make accusations of who has what agenda because we try to assume good faith.
 * Yes I think the Richard Boyd Barrett article is seriously lacking neutrality right now, that's something we need to work on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point to add. Regarding your request that viticulturist be prevented from editing the article in the interests of fairness. First, if viticulturist edits in a manner that is excessively disruptive or seriously in breach of the biographies of living persons policy then administrators will deal with that. Second, if you continue to engage in discussion here and on the talk page of the article, then it's extremely likely that you will also be able to edit the article itself within probably a few hours. (Thus making it "fair".) Although, when that happens, you would be advised to be extremely cautious in editing the article directly if you have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge, I think it is pretty obvious from Viticulturists edit history that he has a biased politcial agenda. How long do we have to wait for administators to deal with it? Can I contact administrators directly to move the process along? Dave lordan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:188.141.33.215 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, to be fair, I think you have some political views yourself :) Anyway, the position right now, is that there is a direct quote attributed to Boyd Barrett in the current article that I believe he did not actually say, and I've explained why here on the article talk page. I fixed this misleading quote here with a sensible edit summary, User:Viticulturist99 put it back in again here, I provided a not terribly well chosen, but reasonably understandable caution on Viticulturist99's talk page here, and reverted my the changes asking him to discuss on the talk page, he responded to the caution and the request by reverting the misleading quote back into the article here.


 * So, we are misquoting a living person in a way that might be seen to prejudice people against them during an election campaign, and we have someone edit warring to re-insert the misleading quote despite being given a warning about it. (Not their first warning on similar matters in recent days.) I'd like some extra eyes on this issue please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "misleading quote" This is a blatant lie, to put it mildly. Have decency to admit that you DON'T WANT TO READ the quoted articles, because you don't want the quotes to appear in Wikipedia. Please read the article in the Irish Times, just go to the quoted page. Also, please read the article on the Irish Anti-War Movement site, and in the Irish Independant - before smearing me by saying that "First item is poorly sourced controversial, second item is misattributing a quote to a living person". --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, I have just removed (again) the two items that I've raised concerns about on the article's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against the biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit has not been made in a good faith, and I would like an administrator(s) to take a look at what you are doing. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against the biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're to be commended for trying to inject some neutrality into such a controversial article. I looked at the article and the section you were wrestling with in the hope that I could lend a hand. However, although I could see clear sense in your edits and reversions, I was distracted by underlying problems, in particular unreliable sources, and did zip. Sorry. Hope someone is braver or a quicker study than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to claim braveness or quickness but I just overhauled the entire section so that, while preserving the information, it meets neutrality and weight standards better--retitled it and removed some coatracky material. Viticulturist--we assume good faith here, and don't make or take accusations lightly. I think we would all welcome admin attention at this point.Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Viticulturist has already rolled back some of my changes and I am done for tonight rather than risk WP:3RR. Eyes would be appreciated, as I made four edits but by my count only two were reversions. Viticulturist and I were editing the article at the same time without my knowing, so the edit history may look confusing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An admin has wisely fully protected the page. I posted a suggestion at the talk page to advocate for one more edit, eyes and voices appreciated.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sophie Gold
Out right advert for a pontentially scam org. Google search "Sophie Gold Scammer" produces interesting results. Using wiki to provide legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.193.93 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gold IQ specialises in the education of Foreign Exchange, Stocks, Commodities and Bonds". Evidently not in the 'education' of grammar. Laugh, and AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD it is; perhaps someone else could delsort, I'm still waking up... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesper Olsen (runner)
CanadianLinuxUser appears to have a close connection to "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page and there is a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.233.254 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you base that on. The editor has been a heavy editor of the article, but why do you say he has a conflict? That aside, the article is very poorly written and poorly sourced. Even though it's classified as a stub, it's been in existence for quite some time. The English is fragmentary and often consists of straight copies from the sources. And the main source seems to be one website of a project that the article subject founded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All CLuser appears to have done is improve the article, we should thank him or her for that. If there are cut and copy content fron the citation there may be copyright issues requiring some small rewriting. I don't see any problem with COI there and no reason to have the template of the accusation against CLuser on the talkpage either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spurious conflict issue. Fixing the content to avoid fragments and copyright issues wouldn't be too hard - it's mostly facts that just have to be spun into sentences. My bigger concern is the source issues. Someone needs to find more secondary sources rather than what is an arguably self-published source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Found more secondary sources.... of the 18 references there are now 12 from secondary sources. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI I agree that it needs improvement. Just for the record the IP is of a banned user. User:Dromeaz and will be reverted immediately, irrelevant of the content or of the improvement as per policy. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one ever explains how they know that a particular IP belongs to a banned user. Can you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely... Check history.... this is the 20th time that the SAME accusations have been made always from an IP in London, England and from BTCENTRALPLUS.COM domain. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see the unblock request at the bottom of this page - clearly this report is from a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, thanks for the improvements from valid editors. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
This piece is biased throughout and was obviously written by someone who is a critic of Judge Keller. Too many examples to cite, but suffice it to say the entire thing is slanted that way. At the very least Wikipedia should put a notice at the top stating that the objectivity of the article is disputed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tightspotkilo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I started to do some work on the article, but it's long. I'm not sure why so much information about each of her cases is needed. I'll try to do more when I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Commented out the stuff which did not even have the pretense of a cite in the article under WP:BLP rules requiring that it be removed. Much more needs to be pruned - the article is seemingly entirely about a couple of legal cases which would fail notability as separate WP articles in a heartbeat. Collect (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoever wrote the article clearly wrote it as a criticism piece. It only covers her "controversial" cases. The article should cover the case that triggered the judicial warning, and it should probably cover the case that ended up with a pardon. However, the third case (Fierro) can probably be completely removed. And, even with the two covered cases, the descriptions should be significantly reduced. The idea is to tie the cases to her, not to use her article as a platform for a case article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the whole of the specific page cited to support the statement "More than 300 lawyers signed on to official judicial complaints about Keller's actions to both the State Bar of Texas and the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct." As far as I can see, nothing resembling that claim is in the cited source (on the link provided). The whole article might be suspect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Her closing the court at 5 sharp so that a motion in a death penalty case could not be filed a few minutes late, was highly notable and received significant nationwide coverage, as did the consequent disciplinary investigation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Haley Bridges
Haley Bridges (born March 14, 1994) is a Canadian rock drummer for the band Bridges to Cox and Emmy Award winning actress who guest starred in the tv drama 24. Haley and lead guitarist/vocalist, Andrew Cox, founded Bridges to Cox on 2/6/2011. After their first single, 'I Can't Stop Stalking You, Baby', Haley has won 7 Grammy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.130.18 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia article on Bridges or the band or anything else that I can find. This forum is for raising issues with existing articles. If you want to start a new article, this is not the place to ask for help. But I can't find anything in support of what you're saying anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyhi The Prynce
Can someone please change the name of Cyhi's wiki from "Cyhi The Prynce" to "Cyhi Da Prynce"? Also have it so forward to Cyhi DA prynce if someone searches his name with "the"? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs)
 * Moved as requested and as per his verified twitter acount Cyhi Da Prynce - the old title is a redirect - CyHi The Prynce - I found about four different spellings but the one requested seems to be more common and on his records. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maury Buford
Link to "unwronged.com" seems to be just a link to an advertising page... but I don't know how to delete it. It doesn't show up when I click to edit the page. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquebooks (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be clicking to edit the Reference or Notes section and finding it blank. The reference is in the section where the footnote number actually appears.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Coen Brothers
The coen brothers have been signed on to write a new film. I added it to their filmography and yet it was erased. Why exactly was it erashed, when on IMDB it shows their new movie "Gambit" in both of Ethan's and Joel's IMDB Pages?

Here is a link to the IMDB page showing the new film. That you guys have seemed to erase, thinking no new film was there.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404978/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Roderick (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IMDB is not favored as a source here because much of the information is user-generated. Also, we tend not to mention future projects unless they are fairly certain (have a release date for example) and have received significant publicity, see WP:CRYSTAL.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Jews in sports

 * - User:Epeefleche's continued BLP violations on sportspeople articles and List of Jews in sports

In cases where there are not sufficient sources for a Jewish category, Epeefleche uses the "External links" or "See Also" section to directly link to List of Jewish sportspeople -- an interesting way to "circumvent" the system. He's been doing this to literally hundreds of articles. (Here's just one of many examples: )

It's worth mentioning that Epee is the sole contributor to List of Jewish sportspeople and often uses non-reliable sources (e.g.,, ) or self-published sources (e.g., ) to include as many people as possible. Furthermore, a lot of the individuals added as of recently are of questionable notability in their field (see David Merkow). The whole list is beginning to look like one big "Jews are good at sports too" propaganda page and a mass BLP and categorization by ethnicity concern.

I'm bringing this to noticeboard because a simple revert is not going to work on this user, who often doesn't hear it. Bull dog123 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - I notified User:Epeefleche of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - As a point of reference its not enough that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever, but part of one's notability ought to be that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever. John lilburne (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Bull has an editing issue to raise, he should address it on the appropriate talk page (not here). I seem to recall that Bull's edits have exhibited a strong distaste for Lists of Jews and for articles on Jews, and am sorry if their existence troubles him. But that is not to my knowledge a reason for deletion. I also note that, despite a number of warnings, Bull continues to state untruths, in support of his position, as he has done yet again above. As he knows, he misleads other editors when he says that I am "the sole contributor" to the indicated list. It does the project little good for him to ask editors to make judgments based on his misstatements (and this is the second time today I have brought this issue to his attention). The list that Bull complains about is a list that has withstood AfDs -- there is no legitimate reason for him to attack it, and if he wishes to discuss wikipedia's list policy this would not appear to be the appropriate page. Finally, Bull's reliance on the AfD discussion at David Merkow strikes me as curious -- as it is rather obvious that the majority there support the notion that the article is on a notable individual (though Bull if of a different, minority view). I hope that I have not unduly irritated Bull by being of the majority view there, but for him to bring this baseless complaint here seems to me a somewhat aggressive and inappropriate way for him to address his distaste for the existence of Jewish lists and articles on Jewish individuals. Thanks to Off2 for bringing this to my attention, as I may otherwise have been aware of the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that there's any way to legitimately discuss these things with you anymore, but for what it's worth, you have yet to prove that David Merkow passes any of the required notability standards. Bull dog123  06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how being Jewish contributes to one's being an athlete. Or for that matter how being Baptist, Muslim or Lutheran affects one's being a baseball player or cricketer. But I do know that a perfunctory look through the reliable and verifiable sources available shows that there is a strong focus placed on the nexus between being Jewish and being an athlete. A search in Google Books for "Jews in sports" turns up such titles as Jews in Sports, Emancipation through muscles: Jews and sports in Europe, Great Jews in Sports, Jews, sports, and the rites of citizenship, The 100 greatest Jews in sports: ranked according to achievement, Encyclopedia of Jews in sports, Jews and the Olympic Games: the clash between sport and politics, Jewish Sports Star: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, Jewish sports legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, Judaism's encounter with American sports, Great Jews in sports and Sports and the American Jew, and that's just on the first two pages. I couldn't find a single book with the corresponding searches "Baptists in sports", "Muslims and sports" or "Lutherans and sports" that showed any connection between those ethnic / religious communities and being an athlete. I could probably find a dozen other books on the subject of Jewish athletes with a modicum of additional effort. The standard we have on Wikipedia is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and Jews in sports is the subject of an overwhelming number of texts specifically about this defining connection between being Jewish and being an athlete. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that there are other editors on the page isn't the whole story though you have made 1092 edits to the page the next highest editor has made 82 edits. But based on the above what part of Lawrence Seeff's notability is due to his Jewishness? Mandy Yachad, Yakov Rylsky ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been going on quite a few years, here is Alansohn making a correction to the List of Jewish American sportspeople over five years ago. Are you suggesting Alan that there are a proportionally high number of books about Jews in sport or that Jews in sport is more notable than Muslims in sport? Or that there is a specific increased correlation between notable sports people and Jews? Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I've edited this article seven times before today, though I'm not sure what the fact that I've edited the article in the past is supposed to imply. I can make no explanation for why there is so much coverage, as to do so would be WP:OR. If there were sources supporting "Irish-American tapdancers" as being a defining connection, I would be more than happy to support an article on the topic. What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Unfortunately, Alan, that syllogism makes no sense. Just because a person's Jewishness may affect some sportspeople, doesn't mean it affects all. You're taking a giant, unsupported leap there. There may be books on "Christianity and writing" but that doesn't mean every writer who is Christian deserves the title "Christian writer." Would the existence of scholarly academia linking Christianity with sports automatically legitimize adding hundreds of See List of Christian sportspeople to a bunch of people's bios? It's pretty absurd. Also, I have to admit your neutrality on this subject is beginning to be questionable after that ridiculous AN/I notice. Bull dog123  23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my comment was vague Alan, I was just looking at the long term support for and existence of this list and similar lists, the comment came out wrong and I meant no slight on you - it was past my bedtime and I was even confusing myself, so please excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alansohn, that's not the issue. Everyone knows there's a cultural interest in the intersection of "Jews" and "sports." Rather the issue is whether a specific individual's Judaism effects his occupation as a sportsperson. You need to show the notability of this intersection for each individual, else it's an irrelevant intersection -- like "Irish-American tapdancers." For Matt Bloom, there is no evidence him being Jewish makes him a Jewish sportsperson. Furthermore, there is little evidence that he is even Jewish at all (Note: This is the ref Epeefleche uses to source Bloom's Judaism: a blog entry). Five years on wikipedia, and I'm supposed to believe that Epeefleche still doesn't know you can't source wikipedia with somebody's blog. And yet, Epeefleche still pigeonholes Matt Bloom as a "Jewish sportsperson" by adding the "See Also" link to his page, circumventing the "category add" that would inevitably be removed. There's a clear agenda here. He's done this for literally hundreds of articles. Bull dog123 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we still arguing this one? Can I suggest a general solution to the problem: for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody is Jewish unless proven otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I point out, for the benefit of those who don't understand irony (see ) that my last comment was intended as a joke. I'd assumed this was obvious, but evidently not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - On the subject - http://www.jinfo.org/ ..... we have a fair few externals to this website - is this site a WP:RS - used on 177 externals,  none on any BLP articles but used on a lot of lists, actually its worse than that, as the duplicates don't show up, for example there are 30 links to the site from list of Jewish scientists but through duplication only eleven are included in the 177, so we likely have many more than 177 lists as a result of its multiple use on the lists, and then in a quick check - the website is then used on the lists to cite living people such as Lynn Ahrens on List of Jewish American playwrights - on Lynns BLP there is no mention of Jewishness  but she is included in the "Category:Jewish American musicians" - Same website is also used to add Leslie Valiant to List of British Jewish scientists  still alive - no mention of Jew or Jewishness in the body of his BLP  article but he is in two Jewish cats - British Jews and Jewish Scientists. Klaus Roth, David Deutsch David Levy (chess player) all still alive - no mention of jewishness at all in the BLP but included in Jewish cats and added to the same list using the same website. All these lists are the same. half of them are much worse, completely uncited. List of Serbs was one I tidied up a bit recently, I think people that came along were just adding their name, it was totally uncited and full of relinks, its still uncited but at least the redlinks have gone.  But these lists must be useful , look at the List of Jews in sports - viewing figure for Jan 2011 - over 45 thousand views -   Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinfo.org isn't a reliable source because it appears to be self-published (one guy runs it) and it conducts it's own research into people -- often making assumptions like, "This person's background is completely indicative of a young Jewish boy's." (I think that's one of the refs for citing a Hungarian Nobel Prize winner as Jewish). Also, it neglects to supply sources for controversial cases, often leaving the citation section blank if they think it's "obvious" enough. I think it's been deemed unreliable long ago but users who refuse to listen continue to ref with it because it's the easiest way to ref-bomb someone without doing some real research. Bull dog123  21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - Epeefleche is now reverting the tag I put on the list as disruptive editing. He still has over 24 blog entries and unreliable sources "confirming" living people as Jews. Bull dog123  21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, this isn't a very big issue - disputed reliability of sources - there are over two hundred sources on that list - if a few of them need improving or aren't reliable and need removing then considering the article improvemet and the relative repairable issues, lets either discuss specific issues here or move to the talkpage and try to improve there. I have to say, compared to its improvement within policy, this particular list has imo only minor easily fixed issues - a little more working together and discussion for the benefit of the content, we are all here to improve the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is a big issue because it has to do with living people. And it's an even bigger issue because Epee is blatantly circumventing BLP requirements by adding the See Also links to about 100 articles in place of WP:N categories. Bull dog123  23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that I realized long ago there is no co-operative editing with Epeefleche. That's been reinforced recently, and only continues to be reinforced when Epee starts talk-page "dicussions" with the header Disruptive Editing by Bulldog (which, by the way, if you read carefully... is just one big anti-semitism accusation, not a discussion about reliable sources. What a surprise!) and then calls up his friend to come support him in that egregious claim. Apparently adding a legitimate RS tag to his owned article is "disruptive editing." Can we please stop pretending like this user is going to cooperate when it's clear he won't? Bull dog123  23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If the premise of the list is that being a Jewish sportsman is discussed extensively as a way for Jews to overcome issues with participating in society then, really, members of the list should be related to that topic. i.e. sources discussing how hard it was for them to enter the field, or how it has affected how they are treated in society. Either that or, to validate the current inclusion criteria, a source should be found demonstrating the notability of a Jew winning a top flight sports event (i.e. basically the same thing as the original premise, but more explicit) --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This list and some similar articles appear to be created by people acting from ethnic pride, rather than  prejudice. Still, the whole enterprise seems unencyclopedic and dubious, as one person's statement of fact is someone else's prejudiced exclamation (watch the movie Ordinary People for Mary Tyler Moore's expression and nuance when she asks, "Jewish doctor?") Why wouldn't a "Jewish athlete" list support the idea of a Jewish banker article? I would like to see the Powers that Be here hand down a rule that applies the approach suggested by ErrantX and others above, that someone's ethnicity is only to be mentioned if it somehow is material to their notability (first black baseball player in major leagues). I doubt that we'll ever reach consensus on ethnicity without some kind of administrative action--maybe one of the few areas where action from the top is needed, rather than waiting for the grass roots to reach consensus.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of the statements above and have to say that there will never be wikipedia-wide consensus concerning anything about ethnicity unless it's handed down from the top, and that we just have to use the tools allotted us until then. Right now I've removed most of the "See Also" links from BLP pages (though I'm probably missing some). Bull dog123  21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What Epee is doing is not ok, just like it would not be ok for me to add notices on 50,000 athlete BLP's about how they are Christian, and 25,000 other BLP's that they are Muslim, etc. etc. Epee has a proven track record for being obsessed with calling attention to the religion of any jewish person with a WP article, by any means necessary.  All of his responses to editors who take issue with this actions are textbook WP:IDHT responses, and either he doesn't understand what's wrong with what he's doing, or he's purposely being evasive.  He also has a proven track record for on- and off-wiki canvassing to bring attention to AfD's on jewish topics.  I think it won't be long before it will be appropriate to enforce a topic ban preventing him from editing on jewish articles, or just to bring the situation to ArbCom, because he is certainly not trying to cooperate with anyone.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are lot's of RS for the subject "Jews in sport", and there is no reason why this subject should not be represented on Wikipedia. Nobody ever suffered from extra knowledge. Of course Jews in sport are no more important than sportsmen of any other religion. Everybody, who is interested in the subject could work on adding new lists and new articles, but I believe that absence of one list is not a good argument to attack the other. Epee is doing an absolutely amazing work on Jews in sport.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And of course "the regulars" magically appear. I honestly think something needs to be drafted and sent to Arbcom regarding how to deal with people's ethnicity in lists, categories, and articles. It's getting obscenely out of control. With these factions lurking around, there will never be a sensible "consensus" reached otherwise. Bull dog123  00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent idea to develop a system-wide approach for these categories, but I doubt Arbcom is going to make that decision. More likely there will be a weeks to months-long, painful, unpleasant ruckus of accusations, followed by Arbcom considering topic bans for people on both sides.  There has clearly been some aggressive behavior from multiple editors.  An RfC, or a focused discussion on a project page, would probably work better.  Ironically enough, Wikimania is in Israel this year, right?  Maybe everyone can go there and settle it all over a pint of beer.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'd like an Arbcom ruling. This debate has been rehashed in multiple areas in multiple ways.  We need a clear and concise guideline from a higher authority.  Israel doesn't strike me as good place to go if you want to amicably settle debates... NickCT (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd very much like to crack a joke about Israel here, but it would no doubt be in bad taste and I wouldn't want the punch line retold in the evidence section! Well, if it does go to Arbcom can we at least try to keep things respectful and cooperative?  I hope they can focus their attention on some process issues at least, and not how people are getting frustrated with each other.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An RfC would be a big waste of time because we know exactly who would support having restrictions and who would not. It would just be (sorry for the choice of words here) gangbanged into the "no consensus" zone as it always is. As jonathanwallace suggested, ARBCOM is really the only way left to go. I would want this proposal to apply to all ethnic categorizations and lists, so it would have to be wider in scope.  Bull dog123  04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum for this kind of thing, and using this page for making collateral attacks on other editors over the content questions of deciding how to source that someone is Jewish, and the appropriateness of Jewish categories, is beginning to look tendentious. The frequent combatants on both sides of that issue have all made the same points before, here and on other pages, so duking it out again here as if it's a fresh BLP problem or behavior issue is completely unhelpful.  Casting each other as long term behavioral violators is especially tendentious.  If anyone has a problem with the question of who is Jewish and whether that's a relevant intersection with being in the field of sports, there are other places to re-fight that battle.  A better approach would be to calmly decide what the consensus is on maintaining any particular Jewish-X intersection category or list, and what the criteria should be for inclusion.  If consensus has been reached and anyone has a problem with an editor's work to implement the consensus, there are better places for that too.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally believe that Alansohn remarks make sense.Just look at Jewish athletes references he provided. Like he says, they talk a lot about Jewish athletes, but don't feel a need to talk about how being Jewish  effected their athletic performances.  We have lots of coverage like this so we should follow the references.  And once we have a list of course it is fine to point to it in other articles. I see absolutely no good reason to delete it. If there is a bad source that should be dealt with, but that can be talked about later and not here, but on the article page.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The use of "see also" to point to a list is appropriate. See WP:SEEALSO. It states: "'Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question”." Long-term editors will recognize this as a time-honored, widespread use of "see also". Also, lists containing wikilinks serve as natural indexes for wp, and readers who don't have a specific research goal in mind may find the articles listed in lists' "see also" sections useful.
 * Comment.

2. The List of Jews in sports is notable. Determined at its June 2010 AfD to be a Keep.

As these 33 books which are devoted to the intersection of Jews and Sports reflect, and as these 10 Halls of Fame devoted to Jews and Sports reflect, the intersection per se is highly notable by wp standards. The international Maccabiah Games (covered in thousands of RSs), open to Jewish athletes, further demonstrates the significance of the intersection. And Off2's apt observation that this list received over 45 thousand views last month reflects strong reader interest.

WP is replete with lists of persons from city A, state B, nation C, high school D, college E, ethnicity F, and religion G that reflect a Fooian X. Where there is no indication that the "Fooian aspect" of the listed person influenced the "X aspect" of their lives. The above sources indicate that the intersection per se is notable.

In any event, BLPN is not an appropriate forum in which to challenge a list's notability.

3. Judaism is not just an ethnicity and a religion (as with, say, List of Muslim scientists). It is also a nationality. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

The Jews are an unusual case; a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions in contrast are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se, and those who are members of these distinguishable religions are not members of a corresponding nation.

4. Each entry in the List has a ref reflecting that the person is/was Jewish (save two Israeli entries, which have been tagged for possible deletion). This list is in a distinct minority in this respect. Wp lists generally lack refs for most of their entries.

See, e.g., List of English people, List of Canadians, List of Germans, List of people from Chicago, List of people from Melbourne, and African Americans in the United States Congress. I am not suggesting that nom delete these lists (as he has deleted entries on the List of Jews in Sports). I am simply reflecting the sensitivity in the construct of this list, in contrast to the norm at wp (wp:otherstuffexists indicates that such a comparison is permissible as an additional cogent point).

Off2 made a sound point when he wrote that the sourcing "isn't a very big issue ... if a few of them need improving or aren't reliable and need removing then ... lets either discuss specific issues ... or move to the talkpage and try to improve there ... this particular list has imo only minor easily fixed issues".

5. Nom was asked by 3 editors at the list and its talkpage to, if he questions any particular source, discuss it at the list's talk page.  Rather than engage in wholesale deletions and tag-bomb the list, which are disruptive. He ignored consensus. Instead, he engaged repeatedly in deletions and tag-bombing. In doing so he also reverted a fourth editor, and a fifth who is a sysop.

6. Nom has twice here raised the article of David Merkow, a Jewish golfer, which was noticed for AfD on my talkpage. Shortly thereafter, nom argued at the AfD against its notability. At that AfD, a slight majority !voted to keep the article, as notable. The article was kept as no consensus. Nom however bases his argument here—in part—on his asserted fact that the Merkow article is "not notable"; oddly, nom made his latest assertion even after the article was kept.

In any event, BLPN is not an appropriate forum in which to challenge the Merkow article's notability.
 * _________

comment

 * - why we should include this information when possible


 * "Jewish" is in some respects different from other such designations.   Almost uniquely, it is an attribute that has the multiple meaning of describing both a religion and an ethnicity, which do not necessarily coincide. Even where they coincide, some people regard one as the primary determinant, and some the other.  Less uniquely, in neither aspect is the criteria undisputed: certainly  not religiously--the different branches of the religion use sharply different designations. Ethnically, too, it is for many people a matter which is not the least clear, even in their own minds. Also not uniquely, the dimension  we call "ethnicity" is really both cultural and biological--the problems of differentiating the two are common to almost all ethnic descriptions.  Like some but not all such designations: for example, the matter of being   in one or another sense "Jewish'" and the question of Jewish identity is a question which is very much involved with current world politics. And, like most identities,  people may have multiple such identities in different degrees. There is also a special factor In common with a few other identifications:  it is an attribute that in  some parts of the world and to some individuals is  sometimes seen in a derogatory sense--and,  this is not the only identity where the classification can have been in recent years a matter of life or death.;
 * Some of the opposition to the use of ethnic classification here is to avoid this morass: I think that ill-conceived, and a violation of NOT CENSORED. The principle behind this encyclopedia  is that anything at all can be discussed objectively, and the existence of disputes is not reason for us to abandon it.  Some of the opposition to using ethnicity  is the habit of some sources of classifying everyone possible as being of that group--  Jewishness is  a fairly conspicuous example, where the motive may have usually been trying to overcome prejudice but is nonetheless not encyclopedic; this is why there are so many sources, and why some of them are unreliable. Some of the opposition here has been among those who disagree with the use or definition of one or another of the factors, including those who feel the Orthodox religious classification either essential or undesirable, and feel this so deeply they would rather not discuss the matter at all than have to defend or oppose it,.
 * When dealing with public individuals, the public is usually interested to some degree in all their attributes, even those not essential to their actual notability. That's why biographies normally discuss all aspects of a person's life. One can indeed write a book on a sportsperson or scientist describing only their athletic accomplishments and not their personal life, but this is highly unusual. ,and such works are normally of specialized interest only. We are interested in other people not just because of what they did professionally, but because they are people, and the mutual interest we have in each other is so much the mainstay of human life,  that we typically want to know as much as we can. about all their aspects. This is why, for example, we look at their portraits--normally what their face looks like is not much related to their importance, but an biographical article without a portrait seems weird and empty. If we were writing about robots, we would not care, nor if we were robots, would we care . Wikipedia is written by and for humans. I suppose that's the zeroth pillar, the one underlying therm all.
 * The conclusion is that we should discuss ethnic, religious, national, educational, political, and all other aspects of  background for all public individuals for which reliable information can be had; the extent to which we discuss them depends on the importance of the individual and the consequent length of the biography, and also on the importance and interest in the factors for the person--which can be judged by the extent of available sourcing. (Though for living individuals, we do have to take account of DO NO HARM,  and even, to some degree, their own sensibilities). and if we include it, we should use it in categories and lists when it is clear enough--even if, in some cases, we may   need to use separate sub-categories, or at least explanatory labels or footnotes , for people known to be in a group, and for people only said to be.
 * I've gone on at some length, with the hope of saying this comprehensively enough to not have to say it again. I know it's a vain hope, but at least I have gotten it all together.  DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG—it comes down to sources. If sources say a person is Jewish we probably say the person is Jewish. If sources do not say that a person is Jewish we probably do not say that the person is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, many sources are less than reliable on the matter--usually in including people where there is very little evidence.  The difficult problems are when sources disagree,. The most difficult are when the sources say one thing, and the person says something else (or where the person has himself said contradictory things in his lifetime). The key exception to following reliable, selective sources I would allow is for a living person who consistently says something other than the sources.    DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG—you say, "unfortunately, many sources are less than reliable on the matter--usually in including people where there is very little evidence." Their "evidence" is not known to us. If they are a reliable source we are justified in relying on their information. Where there seems to be contradiction—either between sources, or between sources and the subject, or between what the subject says at one time and at another—then we have to reach decisions on a case-by-case basis relevant to the specifics unique to that case. This is not unlike the decision-making required elsewhere on the project. I fail to appreciate that there should be any special difficulty in relation to a List of Jews in sports article. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a prime example of the stupidity of these lists and categories, and here is another one too. If Muhammad Ali is a valid entry on those pages, how long do you think that those pages should actually be, and would they make any sense? John lilburne (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you two understand that's not at all what's being discussed here. Bull dog123  04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people are discussing that content issue, and I suspect it is that content issue that is behind people's frustration with each other's methods. Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful summary DGG.  The only thing I would add is that Jewishness is not unique in its uiniqueness.  Many other categories used to identify people are subject to overlapping, shifting definitions.  In America, the questions of who is Native American, and who is Latino, are also quite thorny, but in a different way. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DGG, yes, very true. However content and cats/lists is a different discussion. I see no real need to categorise an individual, particularly into ethnic or religious cats & lists, where it is not really relevant to their biography. Otherwise we could categorise every minute aspect of their lives, which is silly :D --Errant (chat!) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The general public interest in people's ethnicity shows it is regarded as a major component. If this and the related discussions have shown nothing else, it's that people care very much about ethnicity. And we write to supply information to the public, and the lists and categories are to help them find what they care about. But I note we   add  and categorize by nationality as a matter of course in all biographies--ethnicity is a very similar factor.    DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I think all of you are saying is that List of Jews in sports is a contrivance. In doing so, you are holding List of Jews in sports to a higher standard than is found in a variety of other articles. Consider for example the Criticism of Judaism article. It too is a contrivance. In both cases, editors have deemed the existence of a collection of reliable sources on a topic to be reason enough to justify the existence of the article, even though the overarching topic of the article might not be found or defined in reliable sources. If we are going to permit the indiscriminate collecting of examples so-called "criticism" of Judaism then why wouldn't we allow the compilation of "Jews in sports"? Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint about another article please report that at a relevant noticeboard - the fact that there are other problems on the wiki is of no value to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob—the point is that you are holding this article to a standard higher than another article. Sure you can find problems with an article if you set standards for an article sufficiently high. Let us hold the List of Jews in sports article to the approximate same standards that other articles are held to. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop; actually not at all. Criticism of Judaism is a legitimate topic within the scope of Judaism - it is just we can't fit it all on the main page in any sane way :) Judaism and Sports is also looking like a legitimate topic. We discuss why above. However my argument is that putting people onto that list should rely not just on their significance as a sportsman/woman (which the current list inclusion rationale asks for) but their significance as a Jewish sportsman/woman. --Errant (chat!) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ErrantX—the article, List of Jews in sports, is simply saying that these people are Jewish and excelled in sports. The reader can do with that information as they wish. The criteria for inclusion in this list should not include that reliable sources provide information on how their Jewishness has bearing on their sports accomplishments. In all cases that information is going to be amorphous. The factors determining whether such information is available can be meaningless—the talkative or emotive athlete may express a religious reason for their successes and the less talkative athlete may not cite Judaism as a factor in their sports accomplishments. I think such a standard for inclusion is meaningless. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For a moment of comic relief, check out Judaism and Bus Stops a pretty amusing exercise in pointitude. Wonder if it inspired User:Bus stop's moniker?? Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jonathanwallace—is this somehow in relation to the topic being discussed here? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * retracted totally - Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I have found user bus stop to be pretty much a single issue account and one that appears to be a yellow badger - the account appears to like to add - and johnny who is a jew... see here the most recent at freud Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob—I think such colorful language is out of place. I don't think you should refer to anyone as a "yellow badger". It is out of place. Not just in relation to me, but in relation to any Wikipedia editor. I think you should compose alternative language even if doing so requires more words. The shorthand nature of "yellow badger" is problematic. That is nonstandard language in the context of this project, or at least in my opinion. In my opinion no Wikipedia editor should be labeled a "yellow badger". I feel that it is improper. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, sorry, I am retracting that comment, it was undue and sorry to you for that, I only came to even hear that expresion recently at wikipedia and I should not have used it here, it doesn't apply at all, sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we stay on topic? I think that List of Jews in sports should have as its criteria for inclusion simply that the person be reliably sourced as being Jewish, and of course reliably sourced as being notable as an athlete. I don't think it is realistic to expect of sources to show that the Jewishness of the athlete is in any way connected to the accomplishments of the athlete. It is unrealistic to expect that to be known. The usefulness of the list to the reader is not to show the relationship between Jewishness and sports accomplishments. It is simply to enumerate the intersections between Jews and professional-level sports. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Muslims in sports -
 * List of Muslims in sports doesn't exist because no one wrote, or at least initiated, the article. It is not an inherently bad idea for an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because something is notable for one group of people doesn't mean it has to be notable for another group. Nor is it required of every member in an adjective-noun list article that the subject described by the adjective is essential to their notability.  Those are not the tests.  It's notable if there is a sufficient weight of relevant sources on the subject, in other words, if the people of the world who write about things find it worthy of note.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a topic is notable just because people out there have made some linkage. "Judaism and Bus Stops" got deleted even though it cited reliably sourced articles about Orthodox objecting to bus stops, etc. More saliently, I just lost a deletion battle at WP:AFD for "Somalian genocide" on the grounds that the topic was not notable, even though former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, Genocide Intervention Network and numerous African media had referred to a "Somalian genocide". Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Yes, yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I'd like to know why List of Jews in sports is exempt from the same rules that every other ethnicity list on the planet is forced to adhere to: Don't use blogs, don't use sources of questionable reliability, don't use single-source refs for BLPs, don't create non-notable articles (David Merkow), source exactly what you claim you're sourcing (a good number of entries are sourced with Jewish mothers, fathers, or "heritage"). I get that some users' sole purpose on wikipedia is to make these lists and promote their culture, but do we seriously have to entertain them because "it's a touchy issue?" Bull dog123  22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you, Bulldog: I'd like to know why List of Jews in sports is exempt from the same rules that every other ethnicity list on the planet. I can answer that. We’re here to build an encyclopedia that serves our readership. That much is a Well… DUH! thing. You, Bulldog, are clearly objecting to seeming double standards with Jews vs. (choose a people of your choice). The “List of Jews in sports”-article receives 2,000 hits per day and the interest in the article is clearly increasing over time. It doesn’t matter whether you think that’s somehow terribly unjust; readers from all around the world find the article useful and are reading it. Moreover, they’re visiting the article at some twenty times the volume as the 100 hits per day that the 12th episode of the sixth season of The Simpsons cartoon (“Homer Badman”) receives (yeah, we’ve got an article on every single episode). And Epeefleche hasn’t been using tricks with his See also entries so the article is misleadingly aliased, like Click here for FREE MONEY ; readers are going to the article because they are interested in the subject matter. Now…

I’m not going to belabor the horrible injustice that fate has seemingly imposed upon us; doing so just perpetuates ever more wikidrama. That readers are interested in “Jews in [yadda yadda]” is a fact. It’s a good thing, IMO, that Wikipedia is serving that interest. That they actually read up on the subject (*sound of audience gasp*) is something you clearly find distasteful. Welcome to 1) earth and 2) reality. In short, it is what it is. I wouldn’t be a big fan of List of Jewish linebackers who take steroids and get ‘roid-rage & beat the crap out of their girl friends. But if it got twenty times more hits that Itchy & Scratchy castrate with a Goldfinger-like industrial laser, then it’s fine by me—even though I ain’t personally interested in the subject matter of either.

This is not the venue for you to make your case about man’s inhumanity to man and set everyone else’s views on theology straight. Nor is the rest of the wikipedian community required to go along with you on this and begin debating—here—whether *Jewish Lists* should exist or not. They exist. And readers find it a service. The only thing that is germane to this venue is whether entries are cited so it’s reasonably clear to a reasonable person that the the Jewishness of a particular entry is properly established. If you have a factual issue over whether “Menachem Goldstein” is really a Jew (or whomever the heck athlete is your concern du jour), then why not address that issue directly and without malice instead of trying to tear down articles by deleting whole sections from them? That sort of behavior runs counter to… you know… building an encyclopedia.

Finally, we all know what this is about. You and Epeefleche don’t like each other one iota and that’s why these stupid issues over proper citations turn into flamewars. If this sort of continuing crap happened in a tavern, the rest of the patrons would roll their eyeballs and say “Just take it out into the parking lot and beat the living sh*t outa each other.” Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. In short, try becoming part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * May I interject one notion at this juncture? WP:Overcategorization is a Wikipedia standard which explicitly uses sports lists by ethnicity--twice--as an example of what to avoid: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist." Greg L's "it gets a lot of hits" argument is NOT a reason to include something in an encyclopedia.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: Greg L's "it gets a lot of hits" argument is NOT a reason to include something in an encyclopedia. Really? Really?? Did we take the principal of “Gee… that makes only too much common sense as regards making a valuable product that the world uses and appreciates” and replace it with “I don’t like it, and nine years ago, (in Village Pump Discussion, Archive #14,305), eight of us discussed this issue and pulled this principle out of our butts.”&thinsp;(???)  Please provide the ol’ link to that principal of galactic cluelessness and run it up the flag pole for the rest of us to salute. I’m wondering if you really can point to a core principal that says something like “Just because an article is really really popular and is well used and has twenty times the readership of an article on a particular episode of “The Simpsons”, doesn’t mean it’s cool beans and the article on the cartoon is waaaay neater and belongs here.” (uhhm… yeaaaaaah) . Any supposed *rule* that said “a subject that is really popular and is of interest to many people actually sucks” would would be best met with the fifth of our Five Pillars®™©, which says “If something is brain damaged beyond all comprehension, ignore it.” As for why the heck people are interested in “Jewish athletes” and not “Roman Catholic weekend-warrior athletes who suck on water bottles”, I have no idea. Maybe it’s the cognitive dissonance: “Jew?” “Athlete??” “Where’s the rescue inhalers for all the asthma attacks???” {Sorry, Epeefleche ;-)&thinsp;}  06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of editor essays dealing with the issue. arguments to avoid in deletion discussions gives the specific example: "Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article." Also: "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". WP:POPULAR in stating that popularity does not automatically confer notability includes the following: "One of the biggest misconceptions about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is about everything. When it comes down to Wikipedia's real mission, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is strictly about topics that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Anyway, WP:Overcategorization which I quoted above is official Wikipedia policy, and clearly states that a list of athletes who happen to be Jewish is not notable.  Also, for what its worth, your tone is really inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia talk page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As for my tone and whether it is “appropriate” for existing anywhere on the same planet upon which you dwell, well, I had a Personalysis test when I was an R&D engineer at some big corporation. Guess what? It said I was pretty much impervious to social pressure. Go figure. Unless I’m being uncivil, I suggest you not be so presumptive as to assume you may dictate to me, what I may think or how I may express my thoughts. Hmmm? Too much to ask? Nothing I’ve said here is stuff any grownup doesn’t hear day in-day out in the actual grownup world. There’s far too much “I’m bucking to be an Admin one day and can out-P.C. you.” Sure; and turn Wikipedia into a big kindergarden. There’s one thing you can count on about me: I tell you exactly what’s on my mind. I see this is circuitous now and the only arguments are links to stuff that look like they apply here, but clearly don’t. So, goodbye. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cute read and all but whatever point you were trying to make about page-visitation equalling encyclopedic worthiness is silly. The tool you're using shows only page views, not unique visitors. I myself have visited the Jewish sportsperson list at least 300 times over the few weeks, and, let me assure you, I have zero interest in it (or sports at all for that matter). Epeefleche, alone, probably accounts for more than half of those views. The only real point you're making is: wikipedia users, in general, are very OCD. Bull dog123  07:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the only reason the 12th episode of the sixth season of The Simpsons cartoon (“Homer Badman”) gets only 100 hits per day is because you and Epeefleche aren’t active over there, at each other’s throats like Captain Kirk and that lizard creature, battling to the death on their very own planet? You two better get quickly interested in those articles to boost their ratings; I’m thinking of nominating all the articles on episodes of “The Simpsons” for an AfD because all they do is turn Wikipedia into a giant ‘toon. Why don’t we have an article on every episode of Gumby? I see we stop at just providing a list of the episodes. (*sigh*). I’ll answer my own rhetorical question: They wouldn’t get the 2000 hits per day of Jewish men with good upper body development (sorry again, Epeefleche), nor would they even get the 100 hits per day that Homer Badman gets; no one gives a dump about Gumby episodes so no one writes about it. Full stop. But that wouldn’t stop people from opining in joints like this that the only reason Wikipedia has no articles on individual Gumby episodes is they are magically non-notable whereas each and every episode of The Simpsons is fine, exceedingly notable intellectual cuisine. Greg L (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a finite number of Simpson episodes that build into a collective work. The Simpson episodes are also listed sequentially by year and date broadcast. As such there is a homogeneous quality about them which makes them suitable for listing together. If Jewish Sports people have the same connection one to another as Simpson Episodes do then you are right it would make sense to list them altogether. OTOH an alphabetic list of every cartoon ever broadcast anywhere in the world would indeed be just as useless as these lists of sports people X ethnicity. John lilburne (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument for why we should keep lists and articles about TV shows, although that argument did not prevail among people who wanted to fully populate the encyclopedia with articles about models of consumer devices like cameras and cell phones. Nobody is suggesting we keep lists of athletes divided among every conceivable ethnic category (though there are a few holes in the encyclopedia here that could be filled), nor is the lack of notability of or interest in one of these intersections a very good argument against the notability and interest in another.  People's identifications are not homogeneous in the way that TV shows are - people don't come in equal thirty minute segments with consistent look-and-feel requirements.  That means that sometimes, one group of people has a special relationship with a subject that others may not have.  I don't have any knowledge that Jews are particularly adept or prolific as athletes, probably the opposite.  But the subject of Jewish athletes is dear to many and part of the culture for some, so they have written a lot about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how well tempered is the page-visitation tool at filtering out bots, and spiders? If I get a photo thumbed up on stumbleupon it can generate a 1000 hits in an hour simply by people pressing the random button. A link on a well visited blog can generate 100s of hits a day. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Yandex spider visit my pages a dozen times a day each. Page views are interesting we all look at them, but they do need careful filtering. John lilburne (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all very silly. If WP:OVERCAT and WP:POPULAR are at odds with WP:NOTE and WP:CONSENSUS, it's overcat and popular that have to change, not the notion that we cover notable subjects by consensus.  The world as a whole, and in particular the reliable sources, see fit to cover the matter of the intersection between Jewishness and various things in the world that interact with Jewish culture.  It's hard to see why why anyone looking seriously at the topic can't figure out why.  But whether or not you understand the connection, the sources do.   - Wikidemon (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2011 Th(UTC)
 * Some of us think that this entire compulsion of listing and categorizing people based on ethnicity, religion, AIDS/HIV, or some other irrelevant criteria, is UTTER RUBBISH. It has nothing to do with the Jewishness and everything to do with the Pokemon advertising slogan "GOT TO COLLECT THEM ALL". If one looks at some of these entries, take my favourite example, Muhammad Ali there are, the already mentioned, stupid categories like "American boxers of Irish descent" and "American boxers of English descent", but also "People from Paradise Valley, Arizona" but he doesn't live there. "Former Nation of Islam members" what the hell use is that? "People with Parkinson's disease" which is just loopy-loo from there we find George Hislop who apparently died of Diabetes, AND Esophageal cancer AND Parkinson's disease. Best of all for total uselessness "Living people" how does that help me discover whether Will Smith is alive or not?
 * BATSHIT CRAZY, is the nicest way to describe these cats and lists. John lilburne (talk)
 * GregL: arguments about relevance/notability/cruftiness of other articles don't really cut it here. Also, it would be great if you assumed good faith a little more often. Everybody: we are now approaching the virulence, randomness and irrelevance of a really bad Usenet thread ca. 1984. Except that nobody has yet called anyone a Nazi per Thingumabob's Law. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of the category's notability/WP:COP compliance seems like a separate matter from reliable sourcing and the odd inclusion of "See also" to seemingly unrelated BLPs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to insist on regular RS for the category. Per WP:SEEALSO, it might be best to include an explanation of why the link is there if there's no obvious mention of it in the article. Sol (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

cGregL: Riddle me this. If you really believe your statement about "If its popular it belongs on Wikipedia", how come you haven't moved your very amusing sewer cover article to mainspace?Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're beyond assumptions of good or bad faith if people are saying flat out that ethnicity does not matter and should not be used to classify subjects on the encyclopedia. There's no assumption in there, there's a direct statement by people of the motive behind their content position.  You don't have to call it good faith or bad faith to say it's an unencyclopedic way to go about things.  If you don't understand or approve of what Jewishness has to do with sports, you're free to remain blissfully unaware, you're free to denigrate the validity of ethnic identification, and I suppose you're free to call the entire topic rubbish (though some Jews would find an aggressive public expression of that attitude offensive for personal and historical reasons).  If you want to learn more about Jewish culture and ethnicity, there are plenty of sources to read, including Wikipedia.  If you don't, you don't have to read it.  Whatever your personal views, IDONTLIKEIT may be a reason not to take an interest in a subject but it is no reason to try to have it censored from an enyclopedia.  If people don't like the harsh turn these discussions take they should get off their horse and stop trying to scrub Wikipedia of its coverage of Jewish ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Echoing some of Wikidemon's thoughts above, we must not lose sight of what we are doing here. This is an encyclopedia. When a source says that a person is Jewish, that tends to give us justification for using that information. The notion that an area of information should not be used is out of line with the nature of this project, in my opinion. The inclusion of the information that a person is Jewish, if that fact is sufficiently well-sourced, should be fairly standard on this project. If such information is to be kept out of an article for instance, there should be an accompanying valid argument as to why it should be omitted.


 * There are a variety of considerations complicating this, such as BLP concerns and contradictory information. But original research should not be permitted to skew the information we provide the reader: we should not be interpreting sources but rather we should be adhering pretty much to what they literally say. For instance, if a source says that an individual is Jewish but does not believe in God, it is not for us to make the leap in reasoning that since that person doen't believe in God that they must not be Jewish. We should defer to sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha. I find it offensive precisely because I am Jewish American. And proud to be--but if I was notable enough to have a bio here and someone inserted my ethnicity as the fourth word ("Jonathan Wallace, a Jewish American") or put me on a list of "Jewish former software executives" or "Jewish Wikipedia editors" or "former Jewish hippies", I would be mad as hell. Because its a reductive categorization which implies that my ethnicity is the most important thing about me (and also because when the frothy-mouthed right takes over, they will refer to Wikipedia lists to know where to send the black helicopters). For more information on my views on ethnicity see my user page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other Jews would be mad as hell that the category was removed from their bio on grounds that Jewishness supposedly didn't count. You may have a point about undue importance of the PERSON is an HERITAGE-NATION OCCUPATION format for the first line in the lede, although any alternative has its drawbacks.  I have no doubt that much of the debate takes place within the Jewish community.  "I'm not a Jew, I'm an American" is a fairly common expression, one that begs the question of why it is better to divide people along occupations and national borders than ancestral ones.  One of the historical issues I've alluded to is the assimilation and denial of identity among Jews fearful of being deemed disloyal or worse.  Wanting to fit in with everyone else is common to most immigrant cultures, as is the opposite, group pride.  How would it be if half of the French-Americans in the encyclopedia were introduced as such because they were proud of it, and the other half were not because they thought they were being pigeonholed?  Categories and lists are navigational aids, ways to slice the information in the encyclopedia along lines other than the main subject.  They're not intended as assertions about the relative importance of the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wanting to fit in with everyone else is common to most immigrant cultures, as is the opposite, group pride. Eh? Most immigrant societies live in enclaves and perhaps move out into the wider community after a number of generations. In the UK I can take you to a number of cities which have a Asian, African, or East European section, and then they'll be further sub-divisions within those areas. 40 years ago you'd have found Irish areas and Scottish areas. Jews congregated in specific areas of London, my childhood Jewish friends all supported Tottenham Hotspur FC.
 * Categories and lists are navigational aids Navigate to [[Will Smith] from here and see how good these things are as Navigational Aids. HINT they're not. [[User:John lilburne|John lilburne]] (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thought they were being pigeonholed Unless their notability involves their ethnicity then they are, and for no good purpose either because once you've got a list above a few 10s of people they break do not work. John lilburne (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Inserted out of order due to edit conflict (addressing Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.) In the US beginning in the 20th century and probably before, assimilation and loss of culture / language has been a second generation thing, and rediscovering identity third generation. See Melting pot, Americanization of Native Americans, Cultural assimilation, etc.  (to John lilburne).  Requiring that ethnicity be part of someone's notability for us to cover their ethnicity in a list or category is a minority position that as far as I can see has little basis or support.  The "good purposes" why the sources describe ethnicity is that some people value and care about it, others wish to study and preserve it, and some think it's a useful way of understanding themselves and each other.  It's not all a matter of trivia-mongering, group pride (something that itself is not obviously a bad thing), or prejudice.  As an encyclopedia the reason why the sources care about it is a secondary concern.  The primary issue is that the sources care. Obviously there are plenty of sources, and examples of self-identification, that rejects ethnicity.  The "we're all one race", "I'm not defined by my birth circumstances", and all that are positions that many people take, and a very politically charged issue in their own right.  Promoting group identity is a major school of thought in the world, and denying it is also a major school, so we cover both.  If you think list articles and categories aren't useful across the board, that's way beyond the scope of this discussion (actually, so is the issue of ethnic lists in general and this one in particular - recognizing them or not is not a BLP issue, sourcing them is).  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Wikidemon. Other Jews would be mad as hell that the category was removed from their bio on grounds that Jewishness supposedly didn't count. Yeah... no.... I'm not buying the argument that the "lack" of mentioning something in an article that's near and dear to the person has the capability of "making them super-duper mad." Not mentioning someone is Jewish in seven different ways (as Epeefleche has done in some articles, mind you) does not mean they cease to be Jewish, just like not mentioning that Amy Poehler is Irish Catholic (which she frequently mentions in interviews) doesn't mean she's not. I feel the need to repeat this: the default ethnic status of an article is not "Jewish," it's nothing. But that doesn't mean they're not Jewish, it just means its currently trivial to mention concerning their notability. Now if they outright say "I am Jewish" then fine, let's add the one Jewish category (and maybe an article mention) and we're done. There's no legitimacy to start pigeonholing people into "Category:Jewish cricketers" if they also happen to be a cricketers, because there is no proof this intersection is notable for them in particular. If your argument is going to be "Well, there's no proof it's not," then I flat-out give up. Also, people's "interest" in the matter doesn't mean two sh*ts. People are interested in a lot of niche-like things. People seem to be incredibly interested in Timothy Geithner's Jewishness. That doesn't mean we add the sentence "Timothy Geithner is not Jewish, FYI" to his article. People's interest in whether Jared Loughner is Jewish (seems to be a popular topic recently) also doesn't mean we put "Oh, by the way, despite rumors, Loughner is not Jewish" in his article.  Bull dog123  00:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you're responding to, it's not what I said. Nobody here is complaining that articles happen to have omitted mentions of Jewish ethnicity, they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide, as well as some rather bombastic and insensitive statements denouncing the relevance of ethnicity. We haven't polled article subjects over their articles so it's all conjecture, but one editor said he would object to being called Jewish, and I said that some people would likely object to someone motivated by a disdain for ethnicity taking that out of their biography.  You have a content objection and have edit warred recently with Epeefleche over that.  Every article and every source stands on its own merits, and whether and how to mention someone's ethnicity and whether to include them in a particular ethnic list or category, are all decisions that rest on sourcing and good editing practices.  It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue.  You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise.  If the category reflects a notable subject, and they are reliably sourced to fit the category, then they are in the category.  If it's added without proper sourcing, then it's a BLP issue.  People's interest in subjects is the entire reason for writing an encyclopedia, I'm afraid.  Again, if you're uninterested or even hostile to a subject, that's a personal opinion.  If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue... - ...You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise. What I'm responding to are absurd comments like this, that are flat-out not true. Please link me to the wikipedia-wide RfC where this supposed "community consensus" has "decided otherwise." If you're trying to say "community consensus" has deemed WP:BLP and WP:OCAT irrelevant to ethnicity-sportspeople issues, then you're going to have to prove it and prove it hard. If I understand correctly, your position is.... "Because the intersection between sports and ethnicity has been documented as notable for some people (with book1 and book2, etc...), we don't need sources proving this notability per individual. All we need is a RS mentioning their ethnicity. If that reliable source exists, it proves it is notable automatically because... why else would the RS mention it?" Sorry, that's a spotlight logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. This type of stuff is why some of our policies/guidelines exist in the first place. Also, regarding: ... they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. I'd like at least one diff where somebody out-right suggests scrubbing mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. Just one. This looks like nothing more than a massive hyperbole and totally off-topic to anything being discussed here. And finally, regarding If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced.. This is plainly obvious, but it's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "It's sourced" does not equal "It's notable.", and Wikipedia is not about everything.  Bull dog123  02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the rhetoric - you disagree with me, I get it. But you've misstated my position.  My position and my reading of the community's consensus is exactly what I say it is - that if an ethnicity/occupation intersection is a notable subject and there is a list article or category about it, the person's ethnicity need not be a significant part of the person's notability.  It's not that notability is presumed or that sourcing is not required.  The status quo is that Wikipedia has many articles and categories, some of which have survived multiple deletion attempts, listing Jews in different fields of endeavor.  You and a small number of editors have long tried to change this, beating the drum that these categories are rubbish, and that when they are kept that policy demands that a category member's Jewishness must be sourced as important to their notability - to the point of threats, incivility, edit warring, accusing other editors of bad faith for and repeated notice board complaints for trying to preserve the status quo.  You've done the same thing numerous places across the project, and a few people say here that this is is a project-wide thing to change.  That has never carried the day, and judging by the comments here and every time this comes up, it is unlikely to do so.  Yes, it is objectionable to some that editors engage in campaigns to delete these categories, and hostile sniping, based on their opinion that noting a person's Jewish ethnicity is not a valid way of looking at a person.  It's a worthwhile topic for some people, perhaps not for others, and it's sourced as a notable topic.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I have better things to do than to get suckered into the exact same debate that's played out so many times already. Please don't bait me again by calling my comments illogical, absurd, hyperbole, etc. That's unwelcome and I probably won't respond again, other than to note that I disagree and won't respond. You've made your point, I've made mine. Per the original complaint and purpose of this board, it is not an actionable BLP issue that Epeefleche has edited this particular article contrary to the way you believe it should look. The participation of both of you in an edit war and seeming 3RR violation is a problem, but one for another notice board. Repeatedly bringing notice board actions on this topic is also a problem, and there are a few issues with civility. There will not be any actions on this. A content-related RfC is one way to proceed if you want to continue, but you are predicting it will not go in your favor. Consensus discussion on the appropriate talk pages is a good approach. You have mentioned filing an ArbCom case, which I do not think would generate a content-oriented result, but ArbCom can decide for itself whether to take such a case. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I agree that ArbCom should probably eventually get involved with Wikiproject:Tag-an-Ethnicity and that we shouldn't duke it out here (I didn't even bring it up, even though you're acting like I did), I just want to make clear that Epeefleche's egregious "yellowbadging" of articles (which is what this whole BLP notice was about) actually is an actionable BLP issue, because Jewishness needs to be treated as both an ethnicity and a religion if the external sources don't make a distinction between them (which, in a lot of cases, they don't). Per WP:BLPCAT, 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. It's pretty clear that Epee thinks adding "See Also" links is a way to avoid this (as he has done so before on Andre Geim). You won't disagree something like that is improper... would you? Bull dog123  10:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Wikidemon. Your point about Bulldog disagreeing with the community consensus is spot-on. I can also tell, from reading through this thread, that further arguing with Bulldog is unlikely to cause him to agree to edit per consensus. His behavior makes me wonder if there wasn’t a purpose to choosing his screen name: Bulldog. When I first saw that, I thought “I wonder…” I feel sorry for Epeefleche; he seems to have Bulldog as his own personal nemesis tearing down much of his work attempting to build Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * agree to edit per consensus. Once again, provide link to said consensus. Thanks. Bull dog123  03:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh… Is that what’s going on here? There was no “consensus” established to your satisfaction that the article is OK to exist on Wikipedia so you can edit war with Epeefleche and edit in a manner that tears the article down and diminishes it? WTF!?! That is not the way things work. If we had contributors tearing down articles on an upside-down burden of proof as to their right to even exist, chaos would reign supreme in a collaborative writing environment. As it is, the chaos is limited to just your antics. Until such time as there is a full-tilt, widely advertised, community-wide RfC that establishes that the “Jewish athlete” articles are not permissible on Wikipedia, then you must operate on the assumption it is permissible to exist and must not edit in a manner that has the effect of trying to diminish it. Do you understand that? Or are you going to disagree with that point? If you have a problem with a simple point of fact in the “Jewish athlete” article, then raise it on the relevant talk page on that narrow point . No more. Got that? Your personal sense of whether such lists are good and holy on Wikipedia matters not one twit when debating narrow issues of fact and content of the article. The broader issue of whether such articles ought to exist will not be settled by a debate here (only at a wide RfC), so your personal attacks and baiting are just so much pissing in the wind; we don’t need to put up with it and can ignore you now. Save your opinion for (some future) RfC on the broader point, where you can add your 2¢ as a bulletpointed !vote. Greg L (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to stop typing cute so I can actually sift through that and get to the relevant parts? If you even read what this notice was about, you'd know it's not a discussion about whether the article should exist or not, but about bad refs and BLP issues. So yes, I will "tear down" (your words, not mine) the article if it appears to be cited by bad refs (the four blogs he has there now and the other unreliable sources like Jewishsf) or material that contends with WP:BLP (the hundreds of "See Also" links he spammed). Your can keep repeating yourself with the "editing against consensus" baloney, but there is "no consensus" that says List of Jewish sportspeople is exempt from these rules. Your page views argument, if that even was an argument, doesn't change that either. Bull dog123  04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh… well; just pardon me all over the place for observing that you seem to be saying one thing and doing another. That you rail at the very existence of the article is quite telling as to your bias. No wonder Epeefleche is so frustrated with your *contributions*. Your made it exceedingly clear what your intentions are: there is no consensus that the article may exist so you’ll do what you please to tear it down. You should have thought better before you let loose that freudian slip. My recommendation is that Admins separate you from these articles to avoid more conflict.  Greg L (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche is frustrated with my contributions... right. It must be opposite day. That's fine. It's clear you have little idea of what's going on here. This was in response to your "Bulldog is editing against consensus" jab. There is no consensus one way or the other concerning Epeefleche's spamming, so saying I'm editing "against it" is baloney and just trying to "make me out to be a bad guy." I have no idea what your connection to Epeefleche is but it's clear from this diff that you utterly lack neutrality on the issue.  Bull dog123  05:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The individuals under discussion here are Jewish athletes, people who have been covered in the dozens of books on the subject and inducted into the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum and received other coverage as being an athlete AND being Jewish. These are not just casual asides; These individuals have been included in these multiple reliable and verifiable sources because this intersection of being a Jewish athlete is deemed to be a notably defining one by dozens of different authors. I fail to see how concerns about Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "It's sourced" does not equal "It's notable." or Wikipedia is not about everything have any relevance here as a justification to delete sourced content, remove categories or delete See also links to lists of other Jewish athletes. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly within my right to delete sourced content, remove See Also links, and delete categories that appear to be cited by unreliable or questionable references (like the one you returned) or violate WP:BLP requirements. If you have a problem with that, bring in a third-opinion so they can clear it up for you. Also, those links had nothing to do with the discussions earlier. This notice has since taken a completely different turn. They were only in my response to Wikidemon. Bull dog123  03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks thou doth protest too much. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarona Reiher
I'm unsure of some of the sources used in the Sarona Reiher. Specifically, are reliable enough sources for a BLP? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/
 * http://www.diva-dirt.com/
 * http://pwinsider.com/


 * diva-dirt is a blog (it says so) and therefore unlikely to be a reliable source. I wouldn't trust onlineworldofwrestling because it has no About, and it's hard to tell what it is. pwinsider threw my browser into such a tizzy, it would be sadistic to cite it, although I don't necessarily think that sadism, in and of itself, is a viable reason for rejecting a website as a source. Seriously, I have no idea if it's reliable because I escaped from it before I could figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe I should have warned about that last one, it messed up my browser too. I think there's some really obtrusive ads or adware happening there. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have any additional thoughts on this? Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Online world of wrestling is widely used on thousands of articles,, diva dirt is only on 30 or 40 and as you say a blog, and the other one I didn't look at after the comments but pwinsider.com is only linked from 105 places on this wiki. I have edited a little on these articles and I take the position that in certain fields reporting is perhaps of a lower quality than others and wrestling is imo a bit tabloid in nature - and so I give some of the externals in the topic field a bit of leeway but only if they support uncontroversial content. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aside from being used by many wrestling-related articles, is there any other reason to think the site meets the WP:RS requirements for WP:BLP articles? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not to my knowledge, imo if you look at the site with to the letter of policy and guidelines it is likely not reliable, as I said imo for non controversial content it does not require removal - if a user disputes that then it is off to the WP:RSN and perhaps to the bot request to remove the other eight thousand of them and the content they support. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick Thomas
This article says (and cites a reference) that Mick Thomas read Fred Goodman's "Mansion on the Hill" when he was about 15 years old, which would have been 1975 or so. Goodman's book is copyright 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.151.245 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find the original publication date, but the full title seems to be The Mansion on the Hill: Dylan, Young, Geffen, Springsteen, and the Head-On Collision of Rock and Commerce. . Given the mention of Springsteen, it seems unlikely to have have been written in 1975, but it would be nice to find the date for sure - maybe Thomas read it, but later than he remembered? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll see what I can do about the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a url for the original article, and the passage is ambiguous. As a general comment, I feel the page needs some work, would anyone object if I added a discography of Mick's solo work? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to get back to the article, and see what could be done: thanks for finding the URL, I'll take a look. As for the discography, I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, but it seems like a good idea if he meets notability requirements. Probably best to continue any discussions on the article talk page though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Melissa Scott
The article on Melissa Scott (pastor) was deleted some time ago, without prejudice. Here is the original deletion review. Recently, I put together a new version of her page at User:Gordonhigh/Melissa Scott. I'd appreciate a review and any input. Thanks! Gordonhigh (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Weakly cited, so it asserts little notability with weakly cited sexual claims - http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/melissa-scott-porn-pastor - I notice we get a mention in this undated article " Scott's Wikipedia page was so vandalized, it had to be removed;" - we are getting all inclusive at wiki, I don't support this write at all, others might though. from the marie claire article - ! says Christian Shaw, son of Playboy bunny Christine Shaw, a longtime girlfriend of Doc Scott. He says Melissa's life in porn was an open secret". - I added noindex to remove it from search engine results. Also this cite isn't WP:RS - http://www.morethings.com/ - Off2riorob (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I took note of something away from the porn claims: "Melissa Scott is a self-proclaimed natural linguist, and claims to speak over twenty languages fluently." But this is not what the source says.  The source says "A natural linguist with command of over twenty languages, she digs deeply into her vast collection of ancient manuscripts to find and communicate the purest understanding of what the original inspired writers of the Bible had to say. "
 * My point is that extreme precision is important. It seems more likely that she claims to have studied various languages to a degree that will allow her to read and understand them.  That's still a fairly remarkable claim, of course, but it is not a claim to be able to "speak... fluently."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it can be improved, a google search reveals little in the way of wiki RS, presently there are only three in the article, one primary and one unreliable and one celebrity magazine . She is showing some book writing though http://www.bookfinder.com/author/melissa-scott/ - and local editors may be able to find more. The article in Marie Claire written by Gretchen Voss gets some negative assesment from http://truthaboutpastormelissascott.com/Gretchen-Voss.html - Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Barring some better sourcing, something with content this inflammatory absolutely should not be published. Also, the article is incomplete just from a biography standpoint - what church(es) does/did she pastor?  You say she is a televangelist - what is the name of her tv show/organization/something?  In any event, I don't see anything that would qualify as a reliable secondary source.  --B (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think barring some better sourcing is clearly an issue at present. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input. I've attempted to tweak the article by removing the controversial material. Regarding the comment by B about what churches she pastors, etc.: detailed information about her holdings is available in greater detail on her late husband's page. After he died, these holdings entirely passed to her. I've added more information about this to her page, and I can add more if it's needed. Please give User:Gordonhigh/Melissa Scott a look again and any comments would be appreciated. Gordonhigh (talk • contribs)
 * I learned a new word &mdash; pedagogical. Five suggestions: (1) There are now zero external reliable sources of information external to the subject.  It is unlikely that this article would survive an AFD. (2) This needs to be sourced: Scott is admittedly reclusive and media-shy, granting few interviews. She has never spoken publicly about her personal life or her family.  (3) The first paragraph under #Career about her relationship with Eugene Scott, when they met, when they started dating, etc is problematic on several levels.  It is unrelated to her career and it is unsourced.  Also, I am rather loathe to point out the relative ages in a marriage like this (two people of vastly different ages) unless it is something that the media has noted.  Sure, we can do the math and on that basis, it is "sourced", but I'm always a tad bit leery that pointing out the age difference is implying something (that it's not normal). (4) If she really has no notability outside of being the pastor at her church, then it may make more sense to just add the relevant details to that article rather than to create a new article about her. (5) I am still unclear how she is a "televangelist".  Does she self-identify as that title?  My pastor's sermons are broadcast locally on TV, but he would never call himself a "televangelist".  So I'm unclear on how she is a televangelist from reading the article.  It may be that anyone who has ever heard of her would say "of course she is a televangelist", but I had never heard of her prior to seeing this noticeboard on my watchlist. --B (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yes I added it, and didn't know what it meant till then either, thats the wiki for you, you learn something new visit. I referenced it from the Marie Claire article,Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, I wish I could say I knew what pedagogical meant, but sadly I did not add it and that is not the case. I just wanted to respond to some your points individually: as far as (3) is concerned, I figured that the relationship was related to her career considering that is how she started in her career as a pastor. I suppose that I could move it to the personal life section if that would make a better fit. I'll remove the differences in ages. (4) I see your point, but to me her notability extends beyond being simply the pastor of her churches by having her sermons broadcast on television in large cities such as San Francisco and Sacramento instead of in the local area of her churches (Los Angeles), as well as the 24/7 radio broadcasting in places like the Caribbean. She's also the wife and successor of Eugene Scott, who was internationally famous (whether that counts for anything, I do not know). In relation to (5)... I had simply assumed that a televangelist was someone who broadcast their sermons on television outside the local area, so that may be a mistake on my part. Also, her husband is included on the List of television evangelists, and given that she took control of his ministry after his passing, I simply assumed that would make her one as well. Again, I'm no expert on the subject. And as far as the secondary sources, there are some which I will add in shortly. I just wanted to make sure the basics were suitable first. Gordonhigh (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the term "televangelist", different people may mean different things by it and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we just shouldn't call her that unless either she uses the title herself or it is commonly used in the neutral media. As our own article says, it is sometimes used derisively, so we should just be careful.  Some people think of the "name it claim it" charlatans when they hear the term ... others think of it as you are describing it - anyone who has a syndicated preaching program.  So we just need to make sure that we aren't naming somebody something that nobody else does. -B (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Vital Kamerhe
A number of edits have been made all on the same day (February 3rd) by an anonymous contributor (76.65.174.187 (talk)) aiming at adding a last name to Vital Kamerhe. That is part of a pseudo-political campaign going on in Congo and on the Internet aiming at depicting Kamerhe as non-Congolese. Vital Kamerhe is a candidate in the 2011 presidential elections in Congo and this is a very sensitive and contentious issue. Unless properly sourced and with all the explanations about the context I believe that such modifications should not be allowed. I will do some further research and possibly add a specific section to address the issue if necessary. I found an answer to this question given by Vital Kamerhe in person and available on the CSIS website (http://csis.org/event/road-presidential-elections-democratic-republic-congo) in the form of and audio and video interview. That might be a way to provide a properly sourced, if not impartial answer to the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakumbe (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting one--novel question of whether adding a last name to an article can violate WP:BLP. I found African media covering the whole question of whether he is really Congolese or from Rwanda, such as this and this. I am not able to judge whether these newspapers meet our independently edited, fact checked reliable sourcing requirements. Assuming they (or other sources) do, the right way to handle this is to add a couple of sentences or small section to the article on the nationality issue, neutrally giving both sides.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision to Nathaniel Tarn biographical page
I am working with Nathaniel Tarn on a significant revision to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Tarn. The draft of our work is here: User:Trogon/NathanielTarnDraft. I would appreciate any guidance as to how to proceed with this update and any comments on it. --Trogon (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Off hand, several thoughts: (1) This looks to be largely copied from . Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material without an appropriate release.  Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.  (2) section headings should not be ALL CAPS - they should capitalize only the first letter of the section name (except for proper nouns).  (3) Wikipedia uses footnotes inline, as opposed to all at the bottom.  Please see WP:CITE for information on how to do this.  You can take a look at any well-written article (like Barack Obama or John McCain) to see how footnotes are added inline. (4) Please see WP:COI, which discusses Wikipedia's guideline for editing articles where you have a potential conflict precluding objectivity.  (5) Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.  You have opinionated language in here, like "His poetry possesses a remarkable range of voice and reference".  --B (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Novel
Can someone look at this article Gordon_Novel? it's full of massive unsourced claims/badly sourced (I removed it but it's being reverted). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Edit dispute-->stubbing--> speedy deletion in a flash. FWIW, I would have supported the other editor's recommended approach--leave the better sourced info in and PROD the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought I posted a request for investigation here but I must of missed the save button, I have asked the admin to userfy the article for me and if you are interested to investigate imo there is a degree of notability and cites to support an improved article. At the least there is no reason to speedy, the article deserved at least a chance to be improved or a AFD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * note - the admin has userfied on my request, the history is there to see the long term version previous to todays removals, I will replace the cites for investigation, so if anyone would like to have a look and attempt to improve it to replace it to the mainspace it is available here User:Off2riorob/Gordon Novel - Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool,no hurry no worry, if there's a degree of notability then we can attempt to bring it up to standard over the next couple of weeks and replace him to mainspace. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Shane Dawson
On Shane Dawson's page it says there are rape allegations against him. The information apparently has no source and after an hour and a half long search I could come up with no reliable source that would verify the allegations. The only place that I found that mentioned anything about this was 4chan and that is one of the most unreliable sites out there. I also feel that this addition to his page is an attack against him. Even though written in a neutral manner rape is something that even when written neutrally when it has no fact behind it, it is a negative attack at the person.Ryenatay (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove it without a source, as WP:BLP is very serious. If a source could be found, then an addition may be notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I didn't realize that the article was semi-protected, and you couldn't remove it. Thanks for the heads up.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sylverster Stallone: Uncited claims about a probable hoax
An editor keeps adding uncited information calling a film that Stallone starred in,The Party at Kitty and Stud's, hardcore. But in the article of the actual film this claim is called a hoax. At RFPP I was told this is not a BLP violation but I think it is. Further details are covered at Talk:Sylvester_Stallone. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks BLP-ish to me. I looked at the page protection result and don't really understand what the admin means when he says not every detail in a BLP is biographical. Maybe the question of whether the film was soft or hard core is not that important because Stallone as the article says did not participate in the sex scenes? Anyway, I think the result you are seeking--calling the film "soft core"--is correct.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on all your points. The thing is that the "hardcore" designation is unsupported by any citation, therefore it should not be added anyway, let alone in a BLP. Thank you very much for your analysis and for taking the time to reply. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 01:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Donny Deutsch
The section "Personal life" seems to violate WP:NOTGOSSIP and some BLP issues. I'm inclined to remove it entirely, but I'd like a second opinion. --CliffC (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yuk. I'd delete the personal life section, certainly. And then the rest of the article, unless proper sources can be found (I note the ethno-taggers have been at work again...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've edited the entire article to remove POV and create more concise and neutral wording. Also added a ref improve tag as right now two thirds of the refs are to Huff Post.<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

John McIntosh (educator) -
I believe he attended St Josephs Primary School Chelsea and was in fact a Technical Drawing Teacher before becoming Deputy Headmaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannidesd (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We need to work from sources we can check ourselves though: I'll look into this, and amend the article if I can see the problem. AndyTheGrump 13:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the article as it stands that seems to directly conflict with what you say, so I don't see the need for revisions. The article could do with more references though: I'll add a template to indicate this. AndyTheGrump 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Joan Rivers Political Affiliation
On the Lawrence O'Donnell show, aired on MSNBC on Feb. 7, 2011, Joan Rivers stated that she is a long time Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.25.178 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something that makes that a noteworthy part of her life? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears we already have in our article - In 2002, Rivers told the Montreal Mirror that she is a Republican.http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/070402/comedy1.html - and I quote from there, for this discussion only - " How can you not be? How can anyone not be? How          can you live in a country when you can not say the Pledge of Allegiance           anymore? Insane people have taken over the Democratic Party. They’re           mad. They’ve taken over the asylum. To be worried about what the           terrorists were eating at Camp X-ray, I think you’re beyond insane.           They’ve just blown up New York. " -  Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Kluivert
Unsourced assertion that living person is "untrustworthy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted this assertion again. I'll watchlist it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire article is woefully undersourced. Collect (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco
I came across this article (Jacque Fresco) doing requests for edits to semi-protected pages. I removed what I thought was a violation of WP:BLP (diff), but it's been restored. Could someone from BLPN please take a look at the article? Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He's a fringe figure, advocating for a computer-governed world, but seems notable due to NYT and Forbes coverage. The source of the material in the diff you gave, is a 25 minute video supposedly from a New Zealand TV show, Close Up. I didn't watch the video, but in a transcript posted on the site, the individual says he was a Klan member and tells a long, rambling story about how he joined in order to combat prejudice. The story is excerpted in the article in such a way as to give a different impression, that he thought the Klan should go further in the direction of prejudice or violence. As it exists, its a WP:BLP violation. If the information is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, it can stay in the article in some form, such as "He says he once joined the Ku Klux Klan and White Leadership Council in order to bring change to those organizations". In order to validate this for our purposes, someone needs to watch the video and verify that it is Jacque Fresco, and he really said those words.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lee Edwards and Mass killings under Communist regimes
Do comments about Mr. Edwards asserting that he is "involved in a number of extremist anti-Communist organizations" placed in an RfC reach BLP concerns? Does a later edit associating one organization with "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites" in association with that claim reach BLP concerns? Might anyone look in on this as I would normally redact such charges, but they are central to the arguments being expressed by one editor. Note this is not a complaint about anyone - but a request to see at what point article talk pages in an RfC are an immune zone. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point us to the RFC, thanks.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC actually contains the assertion he is involved with "extreme" anti-Communist organizations. I think this stays on the permissible side of the line as a statement of someone's opinion about the subject, rather than as a statement of fact. By its nature, an RFC or Talk page discussion isn't held to the very exact standards of an article, and redacting other people's words in such discussions is disfavored--should IMO be done only by an admin and only in the context of "we all know Joe Botz is a slavering baby eater". Also, the second phrase you cite, about anti-Semitism appears to be a direct quote from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing an organization with which (far as I can tell) Lee Edwards is not involved, so no WP:BLP issue there.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor says Edwards is involved with that organization. (BTW, the ADL has reversed itself and does not make the "racist" assertion any more about that organization). Collect (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * - There is no immune zone - BLP applies all over the project - talkpage discussion is part of our process and discussion is required - however if comments being expressed are in your opinion, on the edge of a violation of BLP I suggest you ask the person posting the comments to either - provide a reliable citation to support the claim or remove it asap. As Jonathon says, removing another users comments from a noindexed talkpage discussion should only be done in a case of a clear violation and if the comment is reinserted by the user then administrative assistance is the next step.  Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect--I see now the other editor was implying Edwards was connected to the organization. In any event the information is reliably sourced. You properly brought in the fact that ADL backed off the assertion--which they did by the way because the org apparently cleaned up its ways, not because ADL was incorrect in the first place. I am not seeing a WP:BLP problem. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The other editor did not realize that - and was strongly implying that Edwards was a racist extrimist anti-semite - which I thought improper. Collect (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Riley (journalist)
This person was recently in the Australian news. The page was semi-protected due to vandalism, but it remains very poorly referenced.  Chzz  ► 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This guy may actually not pass notability requirements so a proposal for deletion may be in order. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he is a journalist that gets mentioned in the course of his work but asserts no wikipedia notability unless his work has won notable awards or there is some other notability - which in this case I don't see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * note - prodded - WP:PROD - Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * update - prod was removed although there was no improvement - bumped up to Articles for deletion/Mark Riley (journalist) - interested parties are requested to improve the BLP and or comment . Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

 * - Mafia problem

and some IPs are making serious complaints about this article and alleged bias and inaccuracies. There are understandable moves to treat this as simple vandalism. However, my spot checking on the article indicates that we have a serious of series allegations on a controversial person, which are open to various interpretations. The sources I checked lead either to dead links, anti-mafia sources of uncertain neutrality, and Italian language stuff. I've no time at the moment, but this article could do with checking. From experience we've a small group of Wikipedians who tend to create Mafia articles sometimes with poor sourcing, and questionable notability. This article may prove to be just fine, but it needs some careful checking and probably some not to tender pruning.--Scott Mac 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Huljich brothers
I think this article has been here before, but my reason for bringing it now is that about half of the article content is actually about a criminal trial, not about the Huljich brothers, but about one of the sons of a H Brother.

I think the article is running afoul of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:COATRACK but am looking to some editors more experienced with these types of issues to suggest some options for how to deal with the article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it some of the content - cut and copy copy content violation -- contentious content cited to a single source - with limited usage throughout the en wiki project - without additional support from  more mainstream reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter how rich they are you cannot cut and paste copyright material into the article. And you have not addressed the fact that the article is purportedly about the Brothers, not the son/nephew. As a criminal, the son and the crime fail to meet WP:CRIME our standards. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris Lee (politician) could use some extra eyes
Subject of a scandal that broke earlier. Almost a true sex scandal, but he resigned, although I have a feeling once more media reports pour out, there'll be some nasty stuff added to this article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. Some regulars from the board are already over there it seems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tina Mai
An attack page with zero sources, and I can find zero Google hits for a person with the name associated with the movie names. My db-attack tag was removed. This article should be deleted immediately. Corvus cornix talk  00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not notable and already AFD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been pruned of the offensive content. However, you can still try to persuade an admin to speedy delete it as G10 (attack page) or more likely at this point, A7 (no indication of notability}. I suggest making your argument at the articles for deletion page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Adel Flaifel
An IP editor added some highly negative unsourced material in August 2009. which I've removed. It would be helpful if someone who knows Bahrain could take a look. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the pleasure of knowing Bahrain but I was once a happy shopper in the tax free shop. I trimmed some of the attacking content and the cite farm in the external link section. - as far as I can see, the subject has never been found guilty of or even charged with anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is Bahrain on the way to Rio?!? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its long ago and perhaps it was Abu Dabi and that was pre Rio so .. the memories are variegated and opaque.Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * don't all roads eventually lead to Rio? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian Henderson (police officer) is related although it seems to be better sourced and written. Incidentally the info on the 2010 elections in Adel Flaifel is obviously outdated, unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any English sources discussing the results and the source used in the article for the candicy isn't currently working. From Bahraini parliamentary election, 2010 it looks like he didn't win and or  probably cover it but I don't read Arabic. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco
I came across this article (Jacque Fresco) doing requests for edits to semi-protected pages. I removed what I thought was a violation of WP:BLP (diff), but it's been restored. Could someone from BLPN please take a look at the article? Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He's a fringe figure, advocating for a computer-governed world, but seems notable due to NYT and Forbes coverage. The source of the material in the diff you gave, is a 25 minute video supposedly from a New Zealand TV show, Close Up. I didn't watch the video, but in a transcript posted on the site, the individual says he was a Klan member and tells a long, rambling story about how he joined in order to combat prejudice. The story is excerpted in the article in such a way as to give a different impression, that he thought the Klan should go further in the direction of prejudice or violence. As it exists, its a WP:BLP violation. If the information is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, it can stay in the article in some form, such as "He says he once joined the Ku Klux Klan and White Leadership Council in order to bring change to those organizations". In order to validate this for our purposes, someone needs to watch the video and verify that it is Jacque Fresco, and he really said those words.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)