Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive116

Paul Salamunovich
There needs to be some kind of definitive resolution to this dispute regarding the quote in the December 14, 1994 article written by Timothy Mangan in the Los Angeles Times ("The Panache is Back : Paul Salamunovich has restored the L.A. Master Chorale's to its former glory . . .") which states clearly: "'When I took over the Chorale,' Salamunovich says, 'the first thing Wagner told me was, 'Paul, get rid of half the sopranos and hire basses'--to get back to the old sound.'"

This line has repeatedly been deleted, most recently on 15:05, 16 April 2011, by user 76.91.58.230 who states: "This statement is inaccurate as Salamunovich neither heard nor entertained such an order from Wagner. I am Paul Salamunovich's son and he's has directly refuted this information to me."

While I have no reason to doubt user 76.91.58.230 is in fact the younger Mr. Salamunovich, and also that both he and his father disagree with the quote, the facts remain that:
 * 1) The quote mentioned above is a valid quote from  an established source.  While Wikipedia rules on Biographies of Living Persons states that, "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable," this is clearly not the case in this instance.
 * 2) The repeated deletion of the quote and the stated reasons for this deletion seems to violate all three Wikipedia core content policies, specifically:
 * Neutral point of view
 * Verifiability
 * No original research

I hold no ill-will towards either the older or younger Mr. Salamunovich, and the fact that I was the one to create his Wikipedia page back in 2008 should indicate that I hold the esteemed chorale director in very high regards; however, I strongly believe the article should reflect the existing unbiased third-party record accurately. If either older or younger Mr. Salamunovich has a dispute on the accuracy of the quote or does not remember this quote, it seems that they should take it up with the Los Angeles Times and not with Wikipedia.

I invite others to share their opinion on this. Westofpch (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The press is hardly full of angels, but I doubt the Los Angeles Times would entirely make up this quote. What is to be gained?  Are they trying to bring reality show drama to the world of master chorales?


 * I think if Mr. Salamunovich wants to address this quote with us and not with the Los Angeles Times, then we need some means to verify that it is in fact him who disputes it and not some random person on the internet. I suggest he contact the Wikimedia foundation.  Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Janil Puthucheary


The sources for this article are biased.

"The online citizen" is notorious for selective quoting.

The quote was taken out of context. The original quote was to demonstrate that he had served the nation in a professional capacity rather than offer it as an alternative to national service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj100rj100 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done some re-phrasing and removed some unsourced information, and I'm also going to ask for an extra opinion, but comments and review from others are very welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Online Citizen is probably heavily biased against the ruling PAP, although they would claim it's to counter the pro-PAP bias in the national Straits Times. Given the candidate is running for the PAP, this is probably an inappropriate source and it might be a good idea to copy this to WP:RSN for further input. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jari Tolsa
Neutral point of view and verifiability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.18.148 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's mainly unsourced and unencyclopedic. It's a stub that's been around since 2007. It didn't have much in it, but now it has even less because I removed the folksy, unsourced material. I've also tagged it as requiring sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Michal Neuvirth


The page for Michal Neuvirth needs to be changed to correct information instead of being defamed. People are changing the information so that he is made into a cat. He is not a cat. He is a hockey player. They are abusing the editing abilities of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.128.12 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How crazy. I've semi-protected the article for a week. Gamaliel (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting/John_Derbyshire
The subject user page is an old version of a bio that has been through extensive cleanup and edits. I found it accidentially via normal google search. The old version contains extensive contentious material that has been handled in the mainspace article. I'm not sure how to handle this but I recommend deletion.Jarhed (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I have nuked it. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, thank you.Jarhed (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yevgene Kaspersky


Should we say about the kidnapping of his son? Details are murky and pure speculative. Even Sophos labs has pulled their article. Maybe we should do the same? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I boldly deleted the information on the grounds that this is a developing situation less than two days old; the facts are very uncertain and the sources quoted such as BBC are all echoing Russian websites of uncertain reliability; the family has asked for privacy; and we are not a newspaper. Newspapers and other websites may choose to report on a kidnapping in progress in which the kidnappers demanded secrecy, but there is no reason we have to cover it within a couple days of its occurrence while its still playing out and no-one knows for sure what is happening. The content might be re-added to the article when the situation stabilizes and there is a little more clarity in reliable sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * -update - it appears resolved happily - the son is released and the article now has a simple comment about the issue cited to reuters. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Film : The prodigal Son.
The Jamaica bassist, phil chen, has nothing to do with the film music of the HK film ; The prodigal Son by Sammy Hung. The actual composer for this film was another phil Chen who had composed many film music in Hong Kong till 1995. Please verify with Berklee college of Music ; phil chen of class 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daitoto (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be correct - I have removed the internal link. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rick Hill

 * One anonymous user is contributing to the problems:.
 * Two registered users are creating persistent problems: and.
 * They persist in posting the same material, despite my several corrections and warnings, to the page for Rick Hill. Mr. Hill is a former Congressman and current candidate for governor in Montana.  The problematic postings by these three users are, in my opinion, intended as negative political commentary against Mr. Hill.
 * They have repeatedly added a paragraph with two quotations attributed to Mr. Hill with a citation to a New York Times article. I could find no evidence that Mr. Hill made these quotations, nor are the quotations contained in the cited article.  Furthermore, the paragraph is speculative in nature and not appropriate for an entry.
 * They have repeatedly have changed material to imply that Mr. Hill cheated on his current wife of 28 years, Betti. That accusation is an outright lie.  The citations provided by the three offenders refer to Mr. Hill's divorce from his prior wife in 1976.
 * They have repeatedly two paragraphs that refer to the Billings Gazette newspaper as a source, and that detail specifics of Mr. Hill's 1976 divorce. However, the citations provided do not link to that newspaper.  Furthermore the two paragraphs are speculative, politically charged, and meant to embarrass Mr. Hill, not to inform readers.
 * The current page references Mr. Hill's 1976 divorce and maintains two of the citations other uses have posted that give additional info on the divorce. It is not appropriate for details of Mr. Hill's divorce to dominate the content on this page, particularly in light of his many accomplishments in public and private life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdenowh (talk • contribs) 13:27, 24 April 2011
 * While there may be issues with balance, some of what you say is not painting the whole picture. The NY Times cite can be used and the Gazette links are to scans of the articles. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talkpage posts with four tildes. I deleted the material because the scribd.com source is not reliable especially for controversial material in the biography of a living person. These were apparent, not necessarily true, copies of old newspaper articles in a content aggregator, and very possibly copyright violations.  See WP:BLPREMOVE for an explanation of the policy under which we remove poorly-sourced contentious material. See WP:WELLKNOWN for an example detailing the circumstances under which we would report the infidelity of a public figure in an article: "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." The material I deleted from this bio doesn't yet live up to that standard, though it might if better sources are found. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NeilN: I didn't see the NY Times source you mentioned, which is not in the current state of the article. My comments on sourcing apply only to the scribd links. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, I've restored the NYT-cited material and issued a number of warnings. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
I need some help with this section... (the article is on the front page today so response is relatively urgent). We currently have some level of detail about sexual allegations (the usual stuff for spiritual leaders like this) and I am divided on what is best to do with it. We probably need to deal with some aspects, but I can't decide exactly how to present it. --Errant (chat!) 15:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Difficult mission - Could use a little rewrite but there are plenty of rebuttals and it seemed that the more mud was thrown at him the more popular he got so I don't think he would have minded. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti
Jack Sarfatti - article currently a battleground between IPs. Subject of article complaining to me. The article is a very longterm problem article, and I'd love it if we could get a lot of high quality eyes on the situation quickly, make some radical cuts to the article if necessary, then semi-protect it and be extremely firm about not letting this happen again. My own view is that it should be deleted as an unmaintainable biography on a not-very-notable subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the more important issue of notability, the central problem with the article is that almost all of the references no longer exist online. Thus, to verify them, I'd have to find the original newspaper at a library. I think the sources are real because I can find abstracts of them (I ain't paying to see the whole thing), but I can't verify the actual assertions. Nonetheless, I've done some cosmetic clean-up of the article and removal of trivia (although the yardstick for trivia in this kind of an article is not obvious). Not sure about the IP battle issue. It looks like some IPs have done some heavy editing of the article, but edit wars aren't apparent to me at first glance. Anyway, at the moment, the article doesn't have any real BLP issues, i.e., defamation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it was likely the subject of the article who had the first paragraph read the way that it did. I haven't had time (parents visiting this weekend) to really dig in and figure out what the current upset on the part of the subject is about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * note - I requested indefinite semi protection here - seems like there has been a long term dispute with the subject over his Bio. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * update - ✅ - Six months semi protected by User:Dabomb87 - going forward this will help stabilize the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a very good thing, and I think we should focus attention if we can on make sure that every statement in this biography is well-sourced. This is not a breaking news event, nothing much really changes, we ought to be able to get to a basically decent version of the article and be very firm with people who try to make a mess of it in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Bbb23 - the cited newspaper sources are all available through Proquest, which is free for many people in the U.S. through their libraries.    Will Beback    talk    17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Will, but not all of the cited sources are on Proquest - for example, the San Jose Mercury News article. Still, it's a big help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The San Jose Mercury article is available (two articles) in the archives but they are behind a paywall. See here - Published on August 7 and August 6, 2000, San Jose Mercury NewsOff2riorob (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the full text of these articles now via the Newsbank database. If anyone needs anything from these articles, please contact me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Which editor is Sarfatti?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unsure if it was confirmed or only suspected but there was some on wiki and off wiki disruption (emails and outing) a few years ago and this account was indef/banned - User:JackSarfatti - all better left in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rob. Over five years ago, hardly a justification for 6 months of semi-protection. Mind you, I don't object to the protection, but that's only because I'm not a big believer in IP editing as a matter of policy. However, in terms of consistency with other semi-protected articles, it seems like overkill.


 * I think we should really address the notability issue Wales raises. The notability tag has been in place since July 2010. We ought to determine whether Sarfatti is sufficiently notable, in which case we should remove the tag, or whether he's not, in which case the article should be nominated for deletion. I think it's a hard call myself. Sarfatti has certainly received coverage in reliable sources, but I'm not sure it's the kind of coverage needed to make him notable. Much of it is localized to the Bay Area, and the rest of it, frankly, is because his ideas are so fringe, yet because of his academic credentials, he's able to participate in more mainstream debates.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

- last afd from 2005. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first AFD from that time make interesting reading. I have a degree of support for Jimmys position that he is a low notability subject and his article is of little educational benefit to readers and has been nothing but trouble and that the project and the readers would lose little to nothing if we deleted it, but I have a feeling such a deletion rationale would struggle to reach consensus, so I support your work to edit uncited and not noteworthy content and improve the citations.Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, again, thanks for the pointer to the previous afd (it is an interesting read) - I should really get in the habit of looking these things up, but it still doesn't occur to me automatically yet. I agree with you, though - there would probably be no consensus. Oh, well, we'll just pare it down to sourced, relevant information and let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Micheletti
This entry is extremely biased. It makes no mention of Micheletti's assumption of power as a coup, instead referring to it as a constitutional succession. The entire international community (OAS, UN, EU, US, etc.) rejected this interpretation ("constitutional succession") of events, and the subsequent President of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo, also ultimately acknowledged as much (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-altschuler/lobo-reverses-stance-on-h_b_594717.html). I do not have time to list all the sources for this, but suffice it to say that even the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledged that what had happened was a coup: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html

As it stands, this entry is hugely problematic and requires substantial revision to provide an accurate assessment of the events of June 28, 2009 and the aftermath of Honduras's coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielaltschuler (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis-Philippe Loncke
This brand new article needs an experienced eye over it. I may be wrong, but it has the appearance of a PR "puff" piece. The new editor has added the subject of this page to about half a dozen WP pages, only editing on this subject.Nickm57 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mauricio Macri
Someone is constantly trying to add a story to the article Mauricio Macri (mayor of Buenos Aires) about how his shop was closed and what an abuse it was. No media has reported any of that, of course: this is just the rants of a common shop owner, whose shop has failed to follow some regulation, it was closed as a result, and uses Wikipedia as a platform to tell the world that there is a conspiracy against him. Mauricio Macri will run for either the presidency of Argentina or reelection as mayor; in any case, it's an article that may attract these kind of biased edits from opposers.

The user included this info from several IPs, so the article was semiprotected. Now he has employed a dormant account,, to evade the semiprotection. Cambalachero (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The challenged content is not currently in the article, but it has a number of other apparent neutrality and sourcing problems. I reverted an unsourced assertion about Buenos Aires' crime rate, but the article badly needs attention from Spanish speaking editors as some of the remaining material sourced to Spanish language media seems to need verification (is he really being tried or just sued in a spying scandal? Did he really break a piece of modern art using a reporter's head? And what is meant by the statement that the artwork is believed to "detect corruption"?) Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell Boggs
is there evidence elsewhere he is Wade Boggs' son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.102.186 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, his father's name is Tommy Boggs.   He's a fun guy to watch pitch, regardless of who is father is!  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Barton
Hello, I am a colleague of Dominic Barton's at McKinsey. It has come to my attention that his Wikipedia biographical entry describes Mr. Barton as having been mentored by Anil Kumar. This is false, and an seems posted in an effort to defame Mr. Barton given Mr. Kumar's recent legal troubles. Moreover, the claim does not meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. While appearing to be sourced to an article in Canadian Business Online, there is no mention of any such relationship in that piece and request that the following language be removed to reflect that. Thank you.

During that time Barton was mentored by Anil Kumar, a longtime senior McKinsey partner and earlier pioneer in McKinsey Asia, later caught up in the Galleon Group scandal.[3] a b Joanna Pachner. "". Canadianbusiness.com. Retrieved 2011-03-30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted as unsourced and a bit of a WP:COATRACK. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

lee bullen
This bio says lee bullen is a secret agent for dunfermline. This is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.184 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trash deleted. Collect (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nate Richert
There was a report here on April 18 about Nate Richert, an actor who used to be on Sabrina the Teenage Witch. I corrected the article and warned the new user. There was IP vandalism a few days ago, and then the same crap again about an hour ago. If a few other editors can keep this article on their watch lists, maybe we can control it. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell
There seems to be a serious BLP problem here - assumes guilt, before trial etc. I've removed a statement about his ethnicity from the lede, as irrelevant, but it really needs urgent attention from a neutral party that knows more about the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I've now removed to obvious BLP violations, and will see what I can salvage. It would be useful to have input from others though, as I'm not familiar with the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted a quote sourced to a Grand Jury statement, as primary court docs are never tolerated in BLP's, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Andrus
I knew Jeff. He was not a Jr and not born in 1950. He died recently. This article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.1.150 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * uncited death claim - Sunday, March 27th, 2011 of heart and kidney failure Post Falls, ID - This was added to the article and removed - is anyone local able to find a RS to support this, I am not getting any goole returns. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm removed the 1950 birth date and replaced it with a cited date. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Pine
On April 4, 2011, I created the article Dave Pine, who is a candidate for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in an election that will end on May 3, 2011. I wrote the article to the best of my ability to follow Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies.

On April 22, 2011, Sirfneew began making many small edits, each of which appears to have no other purpose than to cast the subject of the article (Dave Pine) in a negative light. But I assumed that Sirfneew was adding information in good faith and so I corrected some of these edits from a negative tone to a neutral tone and removed those edits that were unverifiable.

Sirfneew simply reverted all of my edits to his/her previous version, even those in which I had tried to incorporate information that he/she added. So I reverted some of his/her edits again, this time notifying Sirfneew in my edit summary that we should discuss our disagreements on the content of the article in the Discussion tab. In the Discussion tab, I listed my reason for each of the edits I made to Sirfneew's edits (most of them were negative tone or verifiability concerns).

But Sirfneew simply reverted all of my edits again without giving any reasons for doing so on the Discussion tab. I don't believe that Sirfneew is interested in discussing our disagreements and coming to a consensus, only in portraying Dave Pine in a negative light (perhaps hoping that by doing so he will lose the upcoming election?)

What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pophuerna (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I left User:Sirfneew a note to move to discussion here or on the article talkpage. So far he has only 27 edits to the article without a single talkpage discussion edit. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted his wholesale reversions that didn't use any edit summaries. I know Sirfneew is "new" here and has only edited this one article so I will try to assume good faith and not bite too much, but.....--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this page because Dave Pine is not relevant. Dave Pine is a candidate for local office and none of his opponents in the race have Wikipedia pages. It is clear that this page was created only to promote Dave Pine's candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfneew (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Kmiec
The subject is a notable political figure. A Republican, he was appointed Ambassador to Malta by President Obama but was recently asked to resign due to the amount of time he has spent writing, which he has done. The subject has posted a long draft of suggest changes and additions to the article. Talk:Douglas Kmiec. We ought to give the proposal our attention and use whatever parts of it are reasonable and would improve the article. But reviewing it will be a big job. Any help would be appreciated.  Will Beback   talk    07:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This article may be getting more attention in the news in the next weeks due to the political aspects and a disagreement over the resignation date. The subject wants to give his side of the story on Wikipedia, and it isn't limited to adding or correcting minor details. The article is probably best if it's kept short, especially with the subject's involvement in this kind of ongoing dispute.   Will Beback    talk    10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Eric Greitens
Malicious content continually being added regarding Eric Greitens Navy career by user 8uhb*UHB. diff linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Greitens&action=historysubmit&diff=426008860&oldid=426008343 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreitensGroup (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 April 2011
 * It is not currently in the article. I have added the article to my watchlist so that is another set of eyes.  The negative informaton does not belong unless it is sourced to reliable sources.  GB fan (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for drawing our attention to this. At first glance however, I have doubts as to whether Greitens meets the standards of notability required for a Wikipedia biography, and the article needs to be rewritten in more encyclopaedic terms if it is to remain. As for the 'malicious content', since it is unsourced, it clearly needs to be removed.


 * I should draw your attention to our WP:COI and WP:USERNAME policies, as they may be significant, should you wish to edit further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Father Yod
Apparently there is a squabble between a former member and a current member or members. In a cursory review of the situation, I see inappropriate editorializing against Father Yod, and also inappropriate deletion of sourced criticism by the other side.

I don't know anything much about these kinds of groups to even know if this is notable or not. The sources in the article don't give me much optimism that any of this is actually notable. But at the very least, we should put some effort into sorting them out...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC) [Addendum: I should have noticed that although Father Yod died in 1975, this is a BLP issue because the contentious material reflects on and describes actions of people still alive today.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kailash Satyarthi
was recently indef blocked for actions at this article. The edits were clearly disruptive: blanking, edit warring over several days, and possible WP:BLP violations.

What merits a wider look, however, is the nature of the entire article. As of 20:22, November 25, 2010 it was a manageable (if somewhat problematic) 7,797 bytes; since then it has expanded to 33,239 bytes of flowery, improperly-cited promotional material but with tons of possibly useful sources. / have been the primary accounts adding to this article since November 2010.

One need only to look in the article history for accusations, more accusations, counter-accusations and counter-counter accusations...The subject could benefit from some intrepid eyes to evaluate the multitudinous links and separate the wheat from the chaff, in sourcing and prose. Also, we should determine whether there are any criticisms that can be reliably sourced that have possibly been excluded from the article in a possible white wash attempt. Anyone want to help? &mdash; Scientizzle 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note after determining that a large proportion of the new content was violating copyright, I have reverted to a previous version. The article could still benefit from more expert editing, though. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (again)
Article has had multiple edits by an IP that were reverted. IP then posted the following to the article page; "Recent careful revisions to this page have been removed en bloc by certain paid climate campaigners whose mission is to try to destroy the reputations of Wikipedia biographees who have questioned the official 'global warming' theory. These careful revisions, all of which were appropriately sourced, include correct spellings of the subject's name. We must ask that readers should disregard this page as unreliable, and that the Wikipedia authorities should carefully examine the edits made over the last 24 hours and discipline those who have undone the sensible, fair and proportionate revisions that had been made. (posted to the article by 86.146.176.114)"

Subsequent discussion of the edits on the article talk page. IP has also posted to Off2riorob's talk page stating that a "paid group of climate campaigners is disrupting pages of people who have questioned the official global warming theory". --Thepm (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the material on User:Off2riorob's talk page (linked above), which strongly implies that the IP is acting on behalf of the subject. This matter needs to be handled sensitively. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lord Monckton himself has previously edited this page, pretending to be someone else. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been IP edits from numerous locales, none of which may be Monckton - but we shouldn't be assuming (or projecting on this IP) without anything concrete. The use of "we" is suspicious but far from conclusive. Koncorde (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say those strongly supportive of climate change have sometimes gone too far with BLPs of those who deny or reject or a 'sceptical' of climate change, this was slighly reflected in the arbcom case, but the idea any of them are paid is unsupported to say the least. Incidentally if it's true correction of the name (misspelling added here ) was reverted this is somewhat disappointing although I can understand people not wanting to go thru a large number of edits to try and find the good from the bad Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Monckton needs no detractors, he does a fine job of making himself look ridiculous without any outside help! Guy (Help!) 21:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jon Bakhshi
The article is a weak BLP which appears laughably promotional to me (one nightclub owned by the subject is New York's "first eco-friendly nightclub", and another has a "U-shaped venue [which] provides a more intimate environment for those seeking a relaxed experience", and lots more gumph).
 * Previous discussion Archive105
 * Previous discussion Archive105

However, the edits by Jakartajones (to say the eco-friendly waffle is discredited) are broken and unhelpful. The user has not responded to an invitation to discuss the issue. Would anyone support stripping the waffle from the article (presumably that would have the benefit of satisfying the editor)? Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the waffle wouldn't leave very much, I was looking for the strongest place to redirect him. A nightclub owner.....and businessman .... is he actually notable? -As for userJacartaJones, that account personifies all that is wrong with the project, its a disruptive opinionated account that has previously been using multiple account and has never made a discussion comment. Pass me an admin hat - you have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive contributions and a failure to move to discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in the previous BLPN report linked above, the article has been almost entirely shaped by two dueling sets of sockpuppets, one pro- and one anti-. The pro-Bakhski contingent at least cites sources, but were the worse sockpuppeters, and have been (I believe) totally indef-blocked.  The anti-contingent, which includes Jakartajones, didn't sock as much, but they continually add unsourced claims, and remove sourced material.  Somewhere in the middle there must be a reasonable short article about a NY-nightclub entrepreneur, but it's never going to happen in the current atmosphere.  Jakartajones needs a vacation or a topic ban, an the article needs to be stripped down to bare, supportable facts.  (In fact, if I recall correctly, I took out a lot of gak at one point, leaving in only what was sourced.  I'm sure that more can be done.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Avinash
No Matter You are Interested In Politics Or Not, You Must Have Seen The Must Awaited Animation Program " VIKATAKAVI" In tv 9. But You May Not Be Familiar With The Inventor Of This Character Which Has Become a Household Name In Andhra Pradesh.(India)

" VIKATAKAVI " Is Basically a Political Satire That Sheds Light On The Double Standards Of The Dark Angels Of Contempoary Politics. I am a Cartoonist-Turned-Animation Director. Having Taken A Course In Animation At ( Mumbai), I Came Back And Worked For Prestigious Organizations Like ' Padmalaya Studios' And ' Zee tv'. My Vision Proved To Be Precise And Animation Has Become The Heart Of Entertaiment. Very Soon I got An Invitation from Mr. Ravi Prakash, The CEO Of 'tv 9' And Created " VIKATAKAVI ", The First Political Animation Program In The History Of Electronic Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.n.goutham (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny
This was recently here also but the issue is pretty similar. An IP is removing some personal details about, the fact that she was hospitalized for anorexia and that she was a member of a burlesque troupe, both of which she has herself discussed in the press. The IP is asserting to be the subject and removing the content because these details have nothing to do with her writing. I am getting a bit involved so additional comments appreciated. Thoughts..the content removed is below. The article has the added problem of too many primary reports written by the subject as such she is a journalist and not really very independently notable, although she has stirred up some discussion in the blogosphere. I am also getting a bit tired of someone claiming to be the suject repeatedly editing their own article, here is the talkpage comment the IP made prior to removing the cited content - "Laurie: I'm removing the information about me joining a burlesque troupe. It was a very small part of my life, and largely irrelevant - it no longer informs my writing." - Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

She has written about her hospitalisation at seventeen for anorexia and subsequent recovery.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/health/article-23809323-life-tastes-better-than-skinny-feels.do

Whilst a student she joined and performed in a burlesque troupe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/15/burlesque-feminism-proud-galleries


 * These are both reliably sourced and relevant to an understanding of the subject, nor do they seem to me to raise weight problems in context. I have watch-listed the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

United Assurance Company


Robert Rooks is convinced this is the work of a (named) detractor. That appears to me not to be the case but I think the article could do with better (secondary) sources. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I stubbed the article, removing all material sourced only to primary documents and public filings, as these were inappropriate sources under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyle Roebuck
Lyle Roebuck

On one hand, this guy doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. On the other, if he is in fact a bona fide and notable writer, I don't see anything distinguishing out there. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a lack of third party sources confirming notability. The one link in the article is a 404. I will propose this for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I took it to AFD because the edit history disclosed a deleted PROD. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)
In a section devoted to criticism of this controversial subject, an editor "Sleetman" has been inserting "responses" that are self-published by the subject on his blog. This editor insists that this is permissible under "consensus", citing a link that doesn't support it. The article has required considerable "cleaning" after these edits, but the editor insists on reverting them.Jemiljan (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other editor links to a previous extensive discussion about Spencer, which dealt with a different issue: whether he is a reliable source in articles about Islam. However, Spencer's self-published writings may be used more widely in his bio than in other articles. WP:BLPSPS says that we can quote someone's own self published work when "1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources." This means we can quote Spencer's blog for his statements of opinion and for details about himself, but not for fact assertions about individuals or historical events.  The other issue, whether it is appropriate in a section on criticism to give the subject's rebuttals to each point, is outside the mission of this noticeboard (it may be more appropriate for the WP:NPOVN noticeboard).  Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Hernandez
Although his nickname has been commonly misspelled “El Duque” the correct spelling FOR HIM is “El Duke.” This nickname was originally his father’s and passed on to him over the years. Orlando’s father grew up in the era of John Wayne, which who he was nicknamed after. If you look up anything signed by him, you will see he signs DUKE not Duque (which would be the spanish translation of DUKE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.118.154 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please raise this issue on the talkpage of the article and see how other editors feel about the issue. You can also add the information to the article (if it's true) if you can find an appropriate, reliable source for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hughes_(aka_epredator)
There appears to be a potential for an edit war on my biography page. It relates to an apparent objection of the content of one episode of a TV series I do. The evidence of any formal complaints about the script and show is not credible, nor referenced.No such complaint has beed upheld, nor to my knowledge investigated. A reference is made to a blog post I made is also not valid as the post has been removed due to additional defamatory remarks unrelated to the content. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Hughes_(aka_epredator)&oldid=425491497 was my edit and explanation of a self edit to a page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Hughes_(aka_epredator)&oldid=425577683 is the revert The reverting editor has asked in the revert comments for some arbitration. I am not sure what to do with this so I am seeking advice please. unsigned comment was by User:Epredator
 * You are correct that this edit is not appropriate for a biography on Wikipedia. It's not appropriate because comments on blogs are not reliable sources, blogs are generally not reliable sources for anything other than basic information about the blog or blog owner's own views, and in any case if the blog owner has now deleted the material concerned then it's difficult to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, even if archive.org might be able to help. I've watchlisted the article and will keep an eye out for this problem resurfacing.


 * The article seems to have some problems with tone, neutral point of view, a very odd article name, and primary sources; it could certainly do with some cleanup. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Acharya Girish Jha
Acharya Girish Jha ( Pandit, Guru, Master Teacher as other titles with or without Acharya)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Authenticyoga (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting us know. I have left a handy menu of links on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Marty Peretz
An editor has recently added about 5Kb of material to Marty Peretz. This article already had a negative tone towards the subject and the changes, while well-sourced, strike me as giving excessive weight to criticism. In some cases, the criticism is of a personal nature - commenting on his appearance and sexual life. I removed one sentence that was clearly original research, but I would appreciate if other editors would review these new contributions and comment on whether they are all appropriate for a BLP. GabrielF (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns. I did some work on the article, removing a lot of contentious material sourced only to blogs and self published sources, which are never appropriate under WP:BLPSPS. I also made a change or two for weight and neutrality, but the article needs  more attention. I started a new section on the Talk page to discuss this and will put some more time into editing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

David Colman
This article is unsourced and reads more like a press release than a biography. Additionally, there is no clear reason why this "David Colman" should occupy the coveted heading alone instead of an entry on a David Colman disambiguation page  -- he does not seem to be any more or less worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia than several other David Colmans for whom sourced information is readily available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondjamesblond (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article needs some work and better sourcing, but a quick Google search confirms he has been quoted in Science and Nature magazines, so he is notable. I am confused by your comment about disambiguation. There don't currently seem to be any other David Colmans with Wikipedia bios. Until someone creates one, I don't think we favor dab pages which are all redlinks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Government Litigation Press Releases and BLPPrimary
At United Assurance Company there is some discussion about whether the use of SEC/FBI/DOJ press releases which describe the results of legal cases violate WP:BLPPrimary. My instinct was no, although I acknowledge there are other considerations such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY, perhaps. The talk page link is Talk:United_Assurance_Company, and the two excerpts/sources are detailed there. I'm won't repost them here, in the event that BLP issues are present. Ocaasi c 19:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a formerly uninvolved editor who triggered this by stubbing the article in question and eliminating primary sources. My argument is that we should not use FBI and SEC press releases about arrests, prosecutions and legal matters, which mention living persons, under WP:BLPPRIMARY. In the article in question, the sources recite alleged bad acts by the CEO of the company. Such releases tend to recite the allegations given in indictments and complaints which themselves would not be usable under our ban on legal and public documents, and they are no more neutral secondary sources than the company press releases we mostly shun (see any discussion at WP:BLPN about assertions sourced to PR Newswire, etc). If a dispute is notable, it will have been covered in the kind of independent news media sources we prefer. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the fuss sometimes about primary sources they are fine for reporting factual information, the problem comes when assumptions and conclusions are added to the fact. Nothing wrong with saying "the primary source says foo was something", what you cant do is put any slant or interpretation on it and in you still have to consider WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY says in full: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Press releases issued by the government which contain negative facts about an individual may in fact be understood as "public records" under BLPPRIMARY. They are also self published material, see WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." Again, I don't think we should ever publish an accusation of criminal behavior by a living person unless we can reference a reliable newspaper article or book. If there is none, the individual probably is not notable (what notable person gets arrested, sued or indicted without a single article in a reliable, independent third party source??) Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in defence of primary sources BLPPRIMARY does not stop you using trial transcripts and court records for factual information the words 'excercise caution' and 'support assertion' being important. I doubt that government press releases would ever be considered self published material. I dont have a problem with most of the information that was removed from the subject article but it was just not notable or relevant rather than against these guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The stakes are low here because we seem to agree on the outcome in this article, but: do you really think the words "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" are ambiguous? I don't see any stretch there. I have personally argued that court decisions should be excepted as secondary sources, but it seems absolute that we never use complaints, docket sheets and trial transcripts in BLP's. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem with your first statement, I dont think we have a big issue, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Wiggin


The material under "expenses" is substantially true and well sourced but poorly organised and written in a way intended to lead the reader to think the worst. There is some redundancy, with incidents described in a way that makes one case sound like two. It could do with tightening up by an experienced copyeditor. applies. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another expense "scandal" involving a British politician which may have WP:WEIGHT issues. Off2rioRob has recently commented on and edited a number of these. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Dux
My name is Frank Dux. I am the very same person portrayed in Bloodsport.

The slant of the Wikipedia Frank Dux article is defamatory and aimed at managing negative perception of me. This defamation has been concocted by persons whose motives and identity is unknown to me that actively prevent the correct, verified and positive information about me from being posted. Such as, any attempt to post my verified world records and contributions to martial arts, law enforcement and military organizations ends up removed within minutes and sources cited like newspapers end up whimsically dismissed.

The people defaming me are using a ploy of citing the existence of allegations while concealing that these same sources who dispute my accomplishments have been exposed by both journalists and in court proceedings as fraudulent and possessing motive. Any attempt made to make mention of these material facts ends up deleted. For instance, Soldier of Fortune magazine is cited and linked to but mention of the fact I filed for libel and slander Soldier of Fortune magazine is now deleted.

The only reason I failed to prevail and have my case go forward on to trial with SOF was my inability to overcome the high burden of proof incumbent upon celebrities as to proving actual malice. SOF acknowledged the allegations made against me were false based upon my exhibit filings (that are sources arbitrarily not being allowed as my page is held hostage by two malicious contributors. Both are operating in tandem under the alias Escape Orbit & Nitetshift 36. Both have announced their actual malice towards me in the past. Both were made fully aware the allegations made against me were exposed as fraudulent in court proceedings (in discussions that ended up archived).

I request to prevent me from being further damaged Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable. I insist given they be banned from editing my page as they act with actual malice towards me.

If the situation is not corrected and these individuals are NOT prevented from inflicting further emotional distress and defamation of my character I can only conclude you endorse and ratify their tortuous, unlawful acts that may include trade libel since this page is being cited and used to compare me to my business competitors who go unscathed and not forced to endure unfair treatment and defamation I am experiencing.

Please, contact me;

Frank Dux The REAL Dux (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the 'defamation' you say exists in that article, nor the bias. Could you please explain more clearly which facts in the article are incorrect, and what reliable sources we can look at to find the correct information?  It's also important that you immediately withdraw your threat of legal action, because Wikipedia's rules require that you be blocked while such threats exist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted material sourced to litigation documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY (this was a bad link anyway) and fleshed out a book source which was incompletely cited. I did not check Soldier of Fortune (which would be a good idea considering the nature of the allegations) but verified that the LA Times and the Keyes book say what they are cited for. I also edited the article for weight, merging the "Controversy" section into the biographical material and eliminating the controversy from the lede (the bio is too short to make the same assertions, citing the same sources, twice). Right now the article seems to be to pass Wikipedia neutrality, sourcing and weight requirements. I also placed a "Welcome" template on the user's Talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The legal threat is being discussed at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He made legal threats, it was under discussion to at ANI (user was notified), then he returned to make more threats. Now this? This has gone beyond the point where just withdrawing the threat will work. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So why hasn't he been blocked? He's gone back to the talk page to continue making allegations towards me and not withdrawn the threat? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has now been blocked indefinitely and is appealing. Though he opened a new account and immediately began making some very aggressive postings, he was cited at WP:AN/I before anyone had ever posted a welcome message and links on his page or attempted to advise him on Wikipedia civility rules. There were also some actual problems with the article. This may be a case of our biting a newbie. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Biting a newbie? Please. When someone comes in and immediately attacks, threatens legal actions and makes unfounded allegations, they forfeit their "protected newbie" status. The idea that I should wait to report his threats until someone posts a welcome message that he clearly didn't read lacks merit. He clearly wasn;t reading his talk page messages or this thread wouldn't even exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not personally too upset by the outcome, given the well-sourced assertions that remain in his bio and the way he has behaved. However, this can be seen as the classic situation where a new user finds his Wikipedia bio, gets upset and emotional, and is handed an indefinite block within a couple days. Procedurally, I would have preferred if someone had welcomed him and offered to help him figure out how to handle things earlier--if he then ignored that, as perhaps he would have, then the outcome wouldn't make me as uneasy. BTW, I suggest taking things down a notch at the article Talk page, where you and another user are getting rather personal. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the user who was warned about his personal attacks on me before and returned to make physical threats, call me a douchebag, a faggot and tell me to go fuck myself, as well as a number of other things?? Dude, I may not have been all sweetness and flowers, but I didn't even come close to that kind of crap and trying to put both of our conducts in the same category is hardly fair. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mina-Jacqueline Au
This article is promotionally written and contains little to no verifiable sources for its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePFs (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GMA News and Public Affairs
This might only be a content issue, but this article seems to list all the journalistic staff of this network whether or not they have articles (and at least one editor seems intent on creating articles on the rest of the staff and programs, at least several with no references. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony Dortie
Article has undergone a number of edits on 29 April 2011 which conflict with the aim of a neutral, well-referenced and informative biography. It now reads more like an advertisement for the subject's numerous business enterprises. A number of references have been removed, as have references which direct criticism at the subject.

Much of the replacement information is
 * badly written e.g. 'He later attributes his out-going personality to his mixed childhood of Sussex Countryside and Inner City London as shown'
 * superfluous e.g. 'His Marmite style of presenting by talking with many inner city urban phrases 'Peace out' 'Laterz' 'Respect' was not to everyone's taste and earned mixed reviews'
 * not at all noteworthy e.g. 'He's fluent in Cockney and understands French'
 * unevidenced e.g. '(born July 1973)'.

Some of the edits have been made by a contributor called 'tttentertainment' which just happens to be the name of the subject's latest business venture - it seems that the subject is unwilling to accept anything but his own version of his life story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.179.70 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That contributor was blocked as a spam username; a new account, Ade bayo90, is now making substantially identical edits. I've reverted and warned. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WCAG-LP

 * Porn charge

I just took note that the WCAG-LP television station article has added a referenced mention of a charge laid against one of its employees regarding child pornography. In my opinion, being charged with an offence is distinctly different from being convicted of that offence ("trial by Wiki"?) and wonder about the appropriateness of its inclusion in the article at this time. In an attempt to avoid an expected cry of "censorship", I've left the material in place but I'm seeking opinions from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as not directly related to the article topic. It looks dubious on WP:BLP grounds, given that we have no article on the individual involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In situations like this, I always prefer to "edit conservatively" as we're requested to do. We are not a tabloid newspaper. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Joanna Russ
Reports are circulating rapidly that this writer/academic died this morning, so far almost entirely via twitter and SPS/blogs. One RS is discussing the matter, but stating "according to multiple sources" she had died, rather than directly confirming it .(Compare to a confirmed death report at ) The persons reporting her death are generally responsible folks, but we're still dealing with self-published and social media sourcing rather than sourcing which meets WP:BLP. Based on how similar reports have been handled (most recently to my memory, Diana Wynne Jones) I've removed the conclusory language from the article, but left in the less definite statement that reports of her death were circulating. Further eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Confirmed by cited RS several hours after initial unconfirmed report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers
Person is not notable and sources are flimsy blogs not accepted as news sources, including his own. Person uses extravagant language when describing himself with no references to back up the claims of "socialite", "philanthropist", "throwing weekly parties at nightclubs around New York City, which became highly popular amongst celebrities and the New York Elite", etc. When following the references provided for each claim, the website provided usually says no such thing. If person removed all the inaccurate information from this page, the page would be empty, that's why I say delete and not edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.67.124 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you started the process of nominating the article for deletion, but that you didn't finish the process. You'll need to complete steps II and III listed on this page. The BLP noticeboard is different from deletion discussions. GabrielF (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP can't create AFD pages to complete the nomination. I'm doing so in good-faith. tedder (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I didn't realize that IP editors couldn't do that. GabrielF (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Anders de flon
I am Anders de Flon (the subject of the article) and some of the content on the current site is inaccurate and I would like this article to be removed. Thank you,

Anders de Flon, (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.232.35.60 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia does not usually remove biographies at the subject's request (as opposed to fixing problems with them), it appears to me that you may not meet Wikipedia's requirement of significant independent coverage to assure notability. We can therefore try to propose your biography for deletion and see what happens (I will do so sometime this weekend if no-one else gets to it first). Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I placed a "welcome" template on the user's talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PROD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

David M. Halperin
User:Enrobe93 has repeatedly inserted poorly sourced or unsourced allegations against David M. Halperin into this article. See here, here, here, here, and most recently here. I have removed without edit summaries, since the material seems so obviously unacceptable, but User:Enrobe93 has restored it multiple times. Interested in science (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You were correct to remove unsourced negative material. Watchlisted.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Peskin
These are all poorly sourced, mostly to non-existent publications, and a recitation of nasty name-calling rather than real information. They should be deleted:

In 2004, Peskin and his wife Nancy Shanahan may have been the benefit of a "sweetheart deal" in which they received a valuable property on Telegraph Hill at a discount price. In 2002, at a loss of $700,000 from the previous $1.5 million purchase price, the property in question was sold for $800,000 to a trust controlled by Harvey and Tsipora Peskin, Peskin's parents, who then, in 2004, conveyed nearly 70 percent of the ownership of the property to Peskin and his wife. The Peskins then converted the two-unit building to a single unit without first obtaining city approval.[11][12]

In 2008, the San Francisco City Attorney and the Department of Human Resources launched an investigation into allegations that Peskin threatened the jobs of city employees. According to a letter obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, Peskin made a series of harassing drunken telephone calls to officials at the Port of San Francisco and said he would eliminate their jobs and cut funding to the agency because staff members disagreed with him. San Francisco city law prohibits members of the board of supervisors from interfering in the business of city departments and qualifies such activity as official misconduct. Numerous complaints have been lodged against Peskin with the City Attorney. The investigation is ongoing.[13] On February 1, 2008 Mayor Newsom told The San Francisco Chronicle that people around city hall had been complaining about Peskin's behavior for years.[14]

In 2003, Peskin instigated an eminent domain seizure of private property at 701 Lombard Street, a triangle of land across a street from Washington Square Park. He did so at the behest of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers neighborhood group, of which his wife was an officer. Some saw this an abuse of government power.[15]

San Francisco Chronicle reporters Matier and Ross have claimed Peskin has a reputation as the "Napoleon of North Beach." [16]

Early in Peskin's elective career, Columnist Warren Hinckle labeled him "The Ayatolla of North Beach." [17] [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.211.197 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed everything but the the threat allegations (second paragraph), which are supported by reliable sources. The first paragraph is not supported by reliable sources (one of the links to Bulldog, a blog, behaves very strangely). The eminent domain paragraph is supported only by what is now a dead link. The Napoleon and Ayatolla paragraphs are just plain silly - they lack context, they're inflammatory, and they have no value as phrased.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Alves
Under the Barcelona section of soccer player Daniel Alves' Wikipedia page it states that he dove during the game against Real Madrid. This is a false statement as the UEFA website is opening a disciplinary case against the person who committed the foul(Pepe). For more information, please review this link: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid=1624556.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.37.242 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * daniel alves (Biased Sources)


 * I've removed the sentence about the dive because of sourcing issues (copyright vio and original research). I've replaced it with a sentence about the investigation, using your source.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Scott Wolf (journalist)
Could someone take a look at Scott Wolf (journalist)? I can't tell where the vandalism stops and the perhaps true but very poorly sourced commentary begins. 174.109.215.125 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. What a mess. I got rid of the most egregious stuff but I think the AP polling stuff needs to go too because its original synthesis. GabrielF (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A mess? And the Titanic had some shake out problems on her maiden voyage. The artilce is one sentence lead, and then two items about two botched stories. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Connecticut
This report is related to the preceding report, for List of United States death row inmates. The Connecticut listing has many names of persons said to be on death row, which are sourced only by a deadlink reference. Some are also sourced by news articles about the trial which date from before the sentencing, and in any event cannot show that the person is still on death row (could have been pardoned, gotten a retrial, or be dead). Should all names of living persons which do not have at least a ref saying they received a death sentence be immediately removed, or should additional time be granted for any interested party to find references? Is there an official state listing of current deathrow inmates, which would be the best sourcing? Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A research report for the Connecticut General Assembly has a complete list of death row inmates here. The Hartford Courant has a gallery of death row inmates here. GabrielF (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Use the official records as a source.  TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A current official list, or a recent list in a reliable source such as a major state newspaper, would be the sort of sourcing I think is required. An old article about a conviction does not establish current status, and a website by some random source would not seem reliable. Some check against vandalism and libel seems crucial (keep kids from creating a fake entry for a lurid crime which placed their high school Principal on death row). Edison (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
WP should protect this page of people disrupting official references.While newspapers references are permited for libel,official or academic references are forbidden or disrupted. Akerbeltz and Co have converted this biography in a discussion of 2 papers (out of more than 300 that Arnaiz-Villena has written) and libels assuming true some newspapers accusations (appeared in one month period in Spanish newspapers) that have been demonstrated to be false. They want to remove the document that shows that Arnaiz-Villena was working in 2009 at his Hospital were the accusations were made in 2001.If accusations would have been true,he would have go to jail.You can type in Google bar "Arnaiz-Villena",go to his personal page and also to the National Institutes of Health (USA) authors page and see that all these years Arnaiz-Villena has being producing as head of a scientific team and as a professor,as always was.Iberomesornix (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really think by repeating your barely coherent rants you're making a better case? We've been through this before, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109 and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive90 and you got nowhere. Might I suggest you please, for the sake of everyone a) learn basic wiki formatting b) understand the importance of references in biographies and c) lay off your incessant tirades and wild accusations? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is tiresome. We have repeatedly asked for the alleged documentation that the changes were dropped, dismissed, or he was found not guilty, but have received nothing. Therefore we go by the sources we do have. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems you do not understand Spanish.Akerbeltz and Kwami:however,you put under “litigation”,newspapers news ,which were written within 4 weeks once at the beginning of 2002.These news are false:everyboby knows in the scientific community that Arnaiz-Villena lives in (either Spanish or international).Even Wikipedia states that these news are out dated .If they are and are violating living people biographies policy,why are they left and not removed?.Journalists never bothered to rectify.

You want official documents to counteract the newspapers short-lived libels.Do you think that a sane individual is going to put up official and private documents for you? Document, pages 15 and 18 , as you can perfectly read and understand,Akerbeltz,is a legal document issued conjointly by the National Health Service and University Complutense at the end of year 2009.They choose their medical professors and reconfirm extant ones.Arnaiz-Villena is listed in Hospital 12 de Octubre  ,as he  always was. If you cannot read Spanish why do you put Spanish newspapers references in English Wikipedia? You are violating a BLP biography by admitting  non-confirmed newspaper references as a valid documents for going against Arnaiz-Villena. In the other hand,facts are dismissing you.Arnaiz-Villena has been working all the time at Hospital 12 de Octubre and University Complutense.My impression is that Arnaiz-Villena is delighted with the biography you have tried to fabricate .Otherwise,he has means ,I think,to remove libels.Symbio04 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And you don't seem to be able to comprehend the most basic concepts of logic. Just because you have a piece of paper that says someone is working somewhere does NOT mean they were cleared of a crime. It just means they're still working there. There are plenty of people in high positions that were convicted of crimes. You just don't make any sense from start to finish. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not ignore now accusations:if something like that amount of money quoted in your reliable “Spanish newspapers” (once in four 2002 weeks,)had disappeared and never mentioned later,Arnaiz had never been declared attacked by enemies ,as he was.Arnaiz was never sent to trial (administrative or criminal):please show documents stating that he was.He appealed his enemies false acussations and he was declared right.Please,show  official documents against this.

WP administrators should remove unbased accusations in foreign languages newspapers in English WP particularly in LPB.This may only fool English speakers.Symbio04 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User:dab tried to finished thie false accusations an persecution of Arnaiz-Villena by quoting a perfectly verifiable sentence of a Higher Court(seee Article Discussion,archive 2:"Now AAV himself is in a position to cite the final verdict, Sentence 184, TSJ Madrid, February 19th, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid; Sentence TSJ, Madrid, January 10th 2004[12], which is in principle perfectly verifiable.

In my book, it is a BLP violation to keep a record of a persecution as "pending" and denying the subject the clarification that the charges were later dismissed. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 19 July 2010(UTC)

Why you do not finish history by reading this sentence.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symbio04 (talk • contribs)
 * In principle yes but given Symbio04 et al's history of downright fanciful claims, I don't think anyone is prepared to take their word in good faith. So something more concrete is needed. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that Arnaiz-Villena is a very bad scientist with very low standards of academic integrity or ethics. But the point is that there are millions of such people on Earth, and it isn't the purpose of this project to keep track of them. So whatever the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article is doing, it needs to base it on our normal standards of encyclopedic notability. As far as I am concerned, the article fails, and simply acts as a flamewar magnet. If AAV has published anything notable in his field (Immunology), let it be cited in the relevant articles about immunology. His linguistics publications are trash and probably do not merit citation anywhere, save perhaps in an article about contemporary pseudolinguistics. I do not think that AAV's history of litigation and associated job difficulties are of any interest to this encyclopedia, and consequently I do not think we should even carry a biography article about this individual. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You,dba, are writing a biography based on 2 out of 320 or more internationally published papers.

It seems you have changed your mind. The College of France and the Royal Society do not thik like you. However,"individual" ,thank you for your help. By the way ,what have you done in Academcs?See It is very confortable anonimity to insult people- ,who has published 320 internetational papers,including in Nature and New England J Medicine,directrd 48 PhD Theses, being educated 9 years in London in Immunogenetics and created an school in Spain to whom I am proud to belong.Symbio04 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * dab, we've been through this before, let's avoid a repeat of that discussion please. His linguistic stuff is (sadly) requiring comment otherwise it keeps cropping up in articles - unless you're promising to police ALL basque/caucasian/iberian/na-dene/etc related articles forever to make sure it doesn't get inserted. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet
User Bill121212 has inserted a contentious and poorly-sourced claim on several occasions without discussion, and in spite of a warning from Off2riorob outlining Wikipedia's editor standards.

His only reliable secondary source is a recently published book whose author provides a critique of Tammet based on personal interviews with the subject. The author's critique has itself been critiqued as a "misstep" by a review in the New York Times (see discussion page for link).

The primary material sourced by the user and book author is a defunct, decade-old website which is purported to have been a former homepage of the subject. This claim is open to doubt. Tammet makes no reference to it in his writings, nor has any other journalist written about it. No copyright notice is given on the site itself, and though the text appears in the first person the name appears misspelled. Subject has never stated an alternate spelling of his name, and no other primary or secondary source uses it.

Finally, the user and book author advance what amounts to a "tiny minority viewpoint" (quoting from Wikipedia's Verifiability and fringe theories pages) on Tammet's savantism and the scientific and media treatment of it. The vast majority of scientists (including all who have studied him) and journalists (hundreds of articles dating back several years) consider Tammet's memory abilities to be consistent with his account of synesthetic perception of numbers and language.

To advance an additional claim, contentious and poorly sourced in this context, would be completely disproportionate and prejudice the article's neutrality.

Please provide whatever level of editorial warning/protection appropriate to prevent an edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel Tammet competed in the World Memory Championships using a wrong surname. His results there are totally contradictionary to his claims being a savang (he won the discipline memorizing names and faces but claims he can not see difference in faces today). The book you mention is a New York Times bestseller. Also famous savant scientist Niels Birbaumer (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Birbaumer) says, Tammet is not a savant by any reliable measurement. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

List of United States death row inmates
This list has some unreferenced names of persons said to be on death row in various US states or federal jurisdiction. I have removed some of the unreferenced ones, especially those which have no article for the individual, although there should actually be an inline reference by each name to a reliable source, which is not a deadlink. One name is different from the referenced name for the same crime related article Capital punishment in Connecticut, where Eduardo Santiago jr is listed as the condemned murderer. Should all names presently lacking a reliable source be removed immediately? Even the names for Idaho which are referenced to a state database just say the person was convicted of first degree murder, not that they were ever sentenced to death, versus life imprisonment, and not whether the sentence was commuted. The list has languished unreferenced for a long time. Edison (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy (particularly regarding BLPs) basically relies on those wishing to include information to provide adequate sourcing, so I'd say yes - remove anything lacking a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You should remove all of them. This article survived an AfD in 2008.  I have nothing against list if they are complete and updated, but no one is doing that for this list.  Perhaps another AfD is warranted.  There are over 3,000 prisoners on death row, the list is far from complete.  Perhaps it could be broken up into lists for each jurisdiction that executes people.  TFD (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out the article. Is there a source for present death row inmates in Idaho, per my comment above? You can be convicted of Murder 1 but not be on death row. Edison (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone subsequently added a state government ref for each Idaho name that he is in fact on death row.Article still has major problems. Edison (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor Varela
Hi, The article has this note from Wikipedia: "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (March 2010)" I've corrected the format deficiency, I think, is it possible to remove the note from Wikipedia if evething is OK? I created the article which is just a personal biography. Thank you very much in advance, Víctor Varela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarela1 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not recommended to write your own article Victor, as WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO is an issue. Are you reported about in independent reports? As a composer you may well be wikipedia noteworthy Notability (music) but some independent reports are what we need to assert that, the article could use some WP:WIKIFY ... and attention from an experienced editor with an interest in modern composers. I left a note requesting assistance on the talkpage of  WikiProject Composers - Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see Victor has not edited the article since 2007. On the substantive point, the article needs more (independent) citations, as Rob states, and leaving a note of these on the talk page of the article might well be a good way forward. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC).


 * I saw saw the note at WikiProject Composers and had a look at the article. I've added some inline cites to the article, probably enough to scrape a pass at AfD, but it needs more and the tag should stay. It's basically a cv and very similar both to the official biography on the composer's home page and to virtually identical bios in the "External links" section, none of which are independent of the subject. Also, virtually all the article's content has been added by the subject and IPs tracing back to Gothenburg (most recent edits were in January 2011). I'll continue to look for independent press reviews but if Vvarela1 also finds some, please add them to the talk page. They needn't be in English. Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Voceditenore for your assistance and improvements. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vvarela has made some edits to his article. I didn't see any problem with them, so I let them be, but I did post a notice on his Talk page about his conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amos Lee
Is this an appropriate photo for the Amos Lee BLP? Any thoughts from other editors? Should the photo be in the article? Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The author of the photo says: "The picture shows a video screen clearly identifying the subject as "Amos Lee, Singer Songwriter" and you can recognize him as well. The image is illustrative to the article since it shows his political sympathies and shows him performing before what it probably his largest audience ever. It also shows a Philadelphia landmark behind him, which illustrates the association with his hometown. It's great that the article also has a close-up image for the infobox, but this is a complementary image that adds value to the article."
 * Another editor says: "My objection is that the subject of the article is Amos Lee, not the crowd/city and this is a picture of the heads of a crowd and buildings with the BLP subject in the far background. The image of the subject is so small that he is not recognizable." WP:IUP says: 'Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)'.
 * Copyright of a any video belongs with the company making the video.  Hence - copyvio.  Collect (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's been the interpretation for full-frame 'pictures off the screen' taken at concerts. But a wide-angle shot in which a video screen is only seen in a small area (which is Keithbob's objection, after all) cannot reasonably be seen as a copyvio, any more than a crowd shot where someone has a book open can be seen as a copyvio of the book.  Otherwise a large share of the photos taken out concerts would have to be thrown out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And ones which are copyvios ought to be tossed. In the case at hand, the description implies that the video has the identification of the subject in evidence.  That is sufficient to make it a copyvio AFAICT.  Crop the image to center left, and the copyvio is gone.  And the person actually becomes more than a flyspeck. Collect (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the copyright issues - Its just a valueless pic imo it is more of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania than it is of the subject, its rubbish and adds nothing of any true value. Off2riorob (talk)
 * Summary: It seems up to this point that the author of the photo has given their continued support and two un-involved editors feel it should be deleted. One cites copyvio issues and the other editor support deletion of the photo because it "adds nothing of any true value". Are there any comments from other editors?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Arnold (musician)
I came across this gushing hagiography this morning and embarked on cleanup. As part of this work, I searched for sources and improved the article with citations and additional facts. An editor claiming to be the subject (User:Thetimarnold) has repeatedly removed mention of the subject's treatment for crack cocaine addiction in Thailand, which was reported here and here, both in The Guardian, the latter including the subject of the article himself discussing his addiction and treatment. The time in Thailand and the treatment received was clearly instrumental in the creation of the subject's debut solo album, and is clearly no secret, but User:Thetimarnold has removed it stating he does not wish it to be mentioned in the article. It seems clear that User:Thetimarnold will continue to edit war over this, so I would welcome views as to whether this should be included or not. I would like to think that we can have a properly balanced article here rather than the whitewashed hagiography that was there previously (much of which was the work of User:Sohohobo, who may also have a close connection to the subject.--Michig (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Article needs trimming back its currently bloated with uncited trivial details. As for the drug addiction a minor mention seems to get weight because of the association to the album, a minor comment seems not undue. I don't see him as being well known so his prior troubles with drug usage isn't either. Is he really notable or is his notability coatracked and supported by association to his godmother or whatever she is? If his notability is as a musician - none of his music appears to have been a hit or charted... Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs trimming further - I had already removed the worst parts of it. His previous band Jocasta is certainly notable, but if the Guardian sources are omitted, aside from those specifically about the band, there is perhaps not enough specifically about Tim Arnold for a balanced article, but that's perhaps a separate issue. There was only a very brief mention of his drug addiction - the charitable fund set up with June Brown funded trips for others such as Pete Doherty, so is worth a mention I believe. I don't believe it was given undue weight. The artist's website describes his trip to undergo a "a physical and spiritual detox", so if it's mentioned there, why shouldn't it be mentioned here? --Michig (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your basic position. Jocasta (band) are imo of minimal notworthy-ness. The COI user should also be encouraged not to edit the article anymore. I notice Is June Browns notable charity fund currently doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included on her BLP. I would delete the band article and this rubbish BLP he is of total minor notability indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Finnigan
Bernard Finnigan is a South Australian politician. As reported by five reliable media sources, he has been charged with child pornography offences. This has been widely covered in Australian media, except in his home state where it is subject to a suppression order. Three editors have have removed this properly sourced information claiming that concensus is required before including it. The content is brief, neutral, verifiable and meets WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN. ShipFan (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Winfred Omwakwe
The lady who won Miss Tourism Kenya 2002 was Vivien W Maina and Winfred came in Second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndamurigi (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk
This article is about an Ukrainian who claims incredible mental feats. No international reference is accepted. The article has a long Discussion page with many comments on his reliability. Only Ukrainian references are given and some people from the Ukraine keep editing this article giving his claims as facts. This man is a fraud and this article a shame for Wikipedia. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article may be lacking in citations for reliable sources and may contain overstated facts as you suggest, but some of your edits clearly violate WP:NPOV and could be said to be borderline vandalism. I would suggest you take a more measured approach to your editing there. Also I notice that the article has many sentences that contain the word(s) "claim" or "claimed" and these words violate WP:WTA.-- — Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson
Can additional people watch and contribute to the Greg Mortenson article?

Another user and I strongly disagree about the content of the article and it's being constantly reverted. The problem is nobody else is contributing, so it's just the two of us. ThanksLgmagone (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The user making this request has been reported by me to the edit warring noticeboard for edit warring here Lhb1239 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

benvenuto cellini
our article obout Benvenuto Cellini gives his date of birth as 3rd November 1500. In his own book he saya that he was born "the day after All Saints Day." This would indicate the 2nd of November not the 3rd. The way that time was calculated, people have no access to clocks is probably responible for the error. Also the plaque on #6 Via Chiara bears the same arror. I refer you to the translation of his autobiography by Anne Macdonell. Malcolm Glover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.49.1 (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the noticeboard for the biographies of living people, which Mr. Cellini is not. You are free to edit the article yourself, or to post your comments on the article's Talk page, pointing to a reliable source. For example, if the Macdonnell translation says the date is November 2, this seems like it would meet our requirements. I will make sure some links are placed on your own talk page connecting to resources which will help you edit Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work Jonathan! :-)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kara Young
The PR Company which has created this article has received monetary benefits to write this article to promote Kara Young's personal and business interests. This article should be inspected for conflict of interest.

The editor should also be inspected for the code of conducts as it has written an article which was out of line in truth in exchange of monetary benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki NYPD (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks NYPD For your post and good intentions. However, after looking at the article and the Edit History I don't agree with your assertions about COI. The Edit History shows the the SPA User:RPRclient created the account but has not edited at anytime in the past 18 months. Anyway there is no proof that that editor RPR client, was paid by anyone nor is there any policy that prohibits SPA accounts from editing an article they have a vested interest in. WP:COI gives cautions but does not prohibit anyone from editing any article. If you read the policy WP:COI I think you will see what I mean. Meanwhile, other editors have been there adding things and doing clean up for 18 months so I don't see any COI issues at present.  Secondly I looked at the article and compared to dozens of other celebrity BLP's this one seems somewhat balanced.  Like hundreds of articles on WP it has a shortage of sources (I will add a tag) and it has a few POV phrases and it needs some formatting and clean up but I don't see any cause for alarm. I think in time it will improve and you would do well to make some constructive contributions there yourself. Good luck and best wishes,--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a BLP ref improve tag and removed the puffery and POV from the article.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

David P. Barash
Nearly the entire article is devoted to a "criticism" section focusing on Barash's political views, when he is primarily known as a sociobiologist. I think this is fairly clearly in violation of wikipedia's coatrack article policy, and I request that an editor look into this. Nearly all of the "criticisms" derive from David Horowitz or those associated with his organizations. --Gary123 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; this looks like a hatchet job by a Horowitz sympathizer. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to coatrack, the source here did not meet WP:RS in my judgment, so I removed the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same content was replaced and expanded upon as there are objections to it here I have removed it and asked the editor replacing it to first discuss and seek support here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not a "Horowitz sympathizer." But more to the point, why are criticisms of Barash's book not allowed in Wikipedia? The book that he co-authroed Peace and Conflict Studies is widely used in Peace Studies programs throughout the United States.  There are plenty of professors and academics whose political views are documented in Wikipedia, regardless of their primary field of study. Barash's book should be open to the same standards. Horowitz is cited as the source of these criticisms (they are clearly established as his opinions, and not broadly accepted facts). I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule that states that criticism derived from Horowitz is not allowed. Horowitz cites specific quotes from the book in his criticism.
 * The material I added came from the Summer 2007 edition of City Journal in an article written by Bruce Bawer, who cites a specific quote (among other things) from Barash's book that praises Lenin who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war." Link: The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007. Are you suggesting that this is not a reliable source? And if so why? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * And by the way, as for your claim that "he is primarily known as a sociobiologist", Barash's faculty website lists 10 books that he has published that relate to Peace Studies. Clearly, Mr. Barash does take this issue very seriously and not simply as a hobby.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * The text you added says that Bawer argued that the book "...supports violence in the pursuit of left-wing ideology". I don't see where Bawar is saying that. What he says is: "The account of capitalism in David Barash and Charles Webel’s widely used 2002 textbook Peace and Conflict Studies leans heavily on Lenin, who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war,” and on Galtung, who helpfully revised Lenin’s theories to account for America’s “indirect” imperialism. Students acquire a zero-sum picture of the world economy: if some countries and people are poor, it’s because others are rich. They’re taught that American wealth derives entirely from exploitation and that Americans, accordingly, are responsible for world poverty." If you want to say that Bawer think the book gives students an unfair view of global politics that's fine but I don't see where Bawer is saying anything about Barash's book supporting violence. GabrielF (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree with you on that. Barash doesn't openly support violence (although his praise for Lenin seems a little contradictory, but I admit that is speculation which doesn't belong in Wikipedia). This should be corrected if the material is reinstated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Also, if you want to add material in which  Barash responds to Horowitz's allegations, feel free too. In fact, I recommend Peace class lands UW prof on list of "most dangerous".(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

List of Australian rules football incidents
I am concerned about this article, and others like it. There are several entries (purely negative) of people who do not have wikipedia articles. E.g. someone "faced criminal prosecution in relation to $120,000 allegedly stolen from a company credit card account." The article is well referenced, but I was wondering if this information belongs on wikipedia. Does the BLP policy cover this? StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ruth dayan
Madame Ruth Dayan...wiki article alludes to her founding Maskit as a 'Fashion House'...not quite so

Maskit was an inspirational Arts and Crafts project who'se main thrust was to train'on the one hand Craftsmen of the highest Quality and on the other.... and what turned out to be the greatest success...to employ the Craftsmen from all over the world settled in Israel from the Diaspora and to market their Works....some the finest Creative Artist/Craftsmen of the period....'Anywhere' !

Thus not only did Maskit in Ben Yehuda,under the El Al building have its Silversmithing Workshops but also it's Galleries on the Ground Floor.

Indeed the Artistic and Creative projects undertaken by Madame Dayan's inspired efforts (Maskit)impacted beneficialy across the spectrum of Israeli/Arab Creative community...added to which some of the finest Craftsmen from Danemark (Georg Jensen workshops) and the U.K de Beers Competition winners)were brought to Maskit to teach and inspire.

I am Eisen and I worked in the Workshops for nearly 1 year in the 1960's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalagures (talk • contribs) 07:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

jose luis turina
Dear Sirs: Some days ago I found an article about me (Jose Luis Turina, spanish composer) in wikipedia.org (english) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Turina), and I personally could see that the information about my biography was too poor, and worse, that the list of my works is not only poor (I've been composing for more than 30 years!), but it contains some titles that I put out of catalogue many years ago. I've tried to solve the problem in the last days, but some minutes ago I've received a note informing me that I was not authorized to make changes in the article. Please, can you authorize me to do those changes? Thank you, and best regards, José Luis Turina

-- José Luis Turina (redact contact info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.16.10 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some useful links on your user Talk page that will help you get started editing here. Please be aware that editing your own biography is disfavored here (see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI), but there is a simple work-around: please post your comments and requests on the article talk page, and other editors will help. However, please be aware that all information should be reliably sourced, so please suggest sources for changes you wish to see made. If you have other questions, let us know-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me echo what Jonathanwallace said and welcome you as well. I removed the information that you added because it was copied from your CV and we can't publish text that others have written elsewhere because we may be violating their copyright. There's no problem with your updating the list of your compositions, but it would be best if you summarized your biography rather than copying it from your CV. If possible you should also provide citations for any reliable third-party sources that can confirm your biographical information. GabrielF (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Haditha killings

 * Section - Haditha killings

This article says "[Thaer] Thabet shot video of AQ IED attacks which later were posted on YouTube." The bio for Thaer Thabet makes no mention of him filming and posting AQ IED videos. A qualification (such as "allegedly") should be used and posted in both articles or the sentence should be removed. Also, a citation would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.56.94 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the statement here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Idina Menzel
Please put the name of her husband, Taye Diggs, below her picture on Wikipedia, and also that she has a son who is almost two years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.41.127 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's in the infobox, but Infobox musical artist apparently doesn't use "spouse". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandy Berger
Original:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission.

Contentious change:

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants.[16].

Discussion Page, section:

Some changes--section "Convicted of mishandling"

The contentious issue, that the subject mishandled by "by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants" is an allegation made in the course of a partisan debate and is reported thusly in what the editor (76.16.180.16) calls a "new" source (a 2007 WaPo article): “Under debate during the Nov. 23, 2004, meeting was Brachfeld's contention that President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants, as National Archives staff member John Laster reported witnessing."

If nothing else, the source does not support the edit. I believe that the information violates BLP as it amounts to original research/hearsay. The incident was investigated and this particular allegation did not factor in the report. The editor (76.16.180.16) did not reply, challenge or discuss the matter in the discussion section even after it was referred to in a reversion edit.Cronos1 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the material is not supported by the source - it's just speculation. I've posted a warning on the IP's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Troy Davis case
Can we have some more eyes on this article? Following this request here at BLPN in August, about NPOV and original research (in the form of a table pointing out what witnesses had said what when, all from primary sources) in an article about a capital punishment case in the US, I pretty much rewrote the article using secondary sources. Two IP editors and new editors (off wiki coordination?) are now proposing adding a massive section (increasing a long article by a 1/5- 12kb) about a recent ruling and the judge's opinions on each (named) witnesses' testimony all sourced to a court document, all pointing in one direction (Davis' guilt). To me there are massive BLP, UNDUE and NPOV problems. Comments here or at the talkpage are welcomed. --Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with all of Slp1's reasoning as to why the material doesn't belong in the article, but I do agree with the conclusion. The article is about a man convicted of murder who is on death row and has been trying to prove that he is innocent, mainly through the recantations of trial witnesses. The legal history is quite complex, but a district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2010 (as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether new evidence "clearly established" Davis's innocence. The district court concluded that the evidence did not establish that Davis was innocent in a rather lengthy opinion. An IP added a so-called key point "summary" of the district court's order. It's over 1,900 words and is full of legal analysis (which the IP denies), extensive quotations, and goes through the opinion witness by witness. At the risk of making a very bad pun, it's way overkill. The IP is using a primary source, deciding what is relevant, characterizing, selectively quoting - and most of it is hardly relevant to the article. I've commented on the Talk page to that effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll just add that I agree that the ruling is important. If it isn't clear to others, its conclusions (including the judge's dismissal of the recantation evidence) have long been included in summary form, in the article, in the second paragraph here. It needs to be included, but with appropriate weight and sourcing. --Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the summary that is already there is much more informative and relevant than the "summary" the IP wants to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the other summary was too lengthy and that the article is better in its current state. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't maintain control over the article. Now, User:Bundlesofsticks is trying to add a so-called condensed version of the long edit, at the same time, replacing some far better worded summary information. In addition, the condensed version has formatting issues and is messy, at best, but even if the mess were fixed, it doesn't belong. I've reverted, but Bundle reverts back. Plus, I did some rewording of the section, and Bundle reverted that as well. I've restored it back to my latest version, but I can't keep reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I got some help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bundlesofsticks is back and adding inappropriate material yet again to the article. See here. I've reverted twice, and although he has, at my urging, started a discussion on the Talk page (which I've responded to), he reverted my reversion.

He's trying to add material about the murder victim. He put a new section at the beginning of the article with a large photo of the victim (which he uploaded and is probably a copyright vio) and a complete biography of the victim. It's amazing chutzpah. The article is NOT about the victim. It's about Davis, his conviction, and his post-conviction legal issues. The information doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, despite discussion on the Talk page, Bundle insists on keeping the material in, and I won't edit war. Bundle has also created a new article on MacPhail (the victim), which has been tagged by another editor for speedy deletion..--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why other editors on this board don't appear to be interested in this article, but again, thanks to Slp1's deft assistance, the dispute has been largely sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Mulcahy
Please close down the Kevin V. Mulcahy page. It has been vandalized continuously with libel. Also, this does not meet the criteria for notable persons to be listed according to the living persons guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldhodge (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't "close down" an article because of vandalism. In any event, the unsourced accusations are not currently in the article. I think there's some validity to your questioning of Mulcahy's notability, though. I'm going to tag the article for notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ross Cameron
An Australian politician with an err.. colorful background, his article is suffering from a bad case of WP:UNDUE and a bit of WP:COATRACKing. I looked at while looking into an OTRS ticket. After removing quite a bit of material, I was immediately reverted - would appreciate more eyes here. -- Versa geek  08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been a rather large sockfarm at work here for several months and on a related article My ATM, which has since been deleted under WP:CSD. I don't expect that they'll give up just because the current incarnations have been blocked. The page is semi-protected for now. -- Versa  geek  10:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done the best I can to tidy it up and remove some spurious claims we can't verify. I think it's in a reasonable state now. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik
Steve Pieczenik is an article about a recent guest of Alex Jones the conspiracy talkradio host. The original version of the article was absolutely awful, but I whipped it in to some semblance of shape. The article has drawn the attention of a huge number of single-purpose accounts, although after I explained sourcing policies to some of them offsite at least a decent number of them are editing in good faith. Even so, poorly sourced or unsourced material is being introduced to the article pretty regularly. So far I have been removing unsourced/poorly sourced material as it appears and I'm pretty sure I'm safe under the listed WP:3rr exceptions, but I'd like a couple other editors to watch over the article anyhow. (So far I haven't really seen much that needs administrator intervention - just stuff that could use extra sets of watchful eyes.) Kevin (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Doroshenko
It seems that users Kjhughes/217.206.228.6/4stones (one in the same person) adds negative links with no textual references….does not conform to a neutral point of view (NPOV) meaning representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Almost skirts Attack Editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchway (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you aren't making a lot of sense yourself, either. However, the unexciting additions by cetain parties to the page, including the bullying accusations, really should be discussed on the talk page, since the people adding them seem incapable of adding them to the article in a properly referenced manner. I've watchlisted the article, I would appreciate others doing so as well. (Please :) ) The issues mostly now seem to relate to adding particular external links to the page as a form of BLP attack. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Mamatas
Anyone else think Nick Mamatas may not even be notable enough for WP, and if he does meet it, has an article that is way too long? The scant references center on a website the author created. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not, seems to be a lack of notable third party coverage. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current list of Refs doesn't look too impressive but there may be others. Are there sources for his awards etc.? Did he get press for that? If the article survives the PROD it will need to be edited and some of the Fan POV will need to be removed.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

- its been sent to AFD for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, there seems to be more of a battle than a debate going on at the AFD. Hopefully, this will change as the requests to keep don't seem to provide bonafide sources to clear hurdle of notability. To answer the question of awards, there doesn't seem to be much press available from them. Perhaps it was because he was only nominated. I don't know. Regardless, looks as if we have some canvassing going on mixed with sock puppets and still no reliable third party coverage. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your characterisation of the deletion debate is a tad suspect; arguments have been made against your proposal. --Martin Wisse (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it? Because this was brought to my attention and seems more than suspect. You know, I think it is okay to post a link to an article on WP, but to post a link to the deletion board on your blog, with a commentary, is just not the best thing to do for us to reach a consensus.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

 * Pippa middleton's buttocks

Should a facebook site dedicated to her buttocks, and references to her on the internet as "Her Royal Hotness" be included in the article? I say not. input requested - and not a bad thing to have her the article on your watchlist.

Discussion at Talk:Pippa Middleton.--Scott Mac 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is incredible. Even the discussion itself is in breach of WP:BLP. I have archived it. A round of blocks may be needed to enforce this, though. Hans Adler 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * based on what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the "round of blocks"? That was pure speculation based on what seemed to be generaly party mood on the talk page. Obviously if there are no further BLP infractions everything is fine. Hans Adler 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And where are the BLP issues? the word "buttocks"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I really have to explain why you can't discuss details of anatomy on the talk page of a BLP article? Maybe porn stars are an exception, but certainly not party planners. Note that this has nothing to do with her social status. I regularly propose articles on non-notable "nobility" for deletion, and I didn't have the slightest idea who she is before following the link from this report. Hans Adler 00:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These details of anatomy are one of the main reasons why she gained notability independent of her sister and these details have been covered in the press from the UK to NZ. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is of no relevance whatsoever for the question of whether to mention them in an encyclopedia. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper. In an encyclopedia, the basic principles of human decency apply. Hans Adler 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you are censoring. Fair enough. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the word, it's the pathetic parroting of lame adolescent tabloid tripe that degrades the woman and makes the word "encyclopedia" at the top left corner of the page look completely out of place. I'm frankly dumbstruck that this is being questioned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We must report what constitutes her present fame, not sort out what we think or would like her fame to be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have now had a closer look at the discussion, and it turns out that "round of blocks" wasn't correct. A single block will be enough. Hans Adler 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. Be in dreamland. I'm done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it is not reasonable to base this on commentary on a single outfit worn on a single day. If Ms. Middleton's derriere is truly significant to an understanding of her, it will continue to be the subject of significant writing long after that dress has been donated to charity.  At the moment, this seems trivial to me, and also distasteful.  Just because a few tabloids write distastefully, doesn't mean that an encyclopedia must.   -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally degrading discussions based on anatomy are not acceptable even on a talk page. I hatted the discussion on the article talk page and redacted the title, with a warning not to undo this without prior consensus here. An editor has now undone the hatting (while changing the title to another inoffensive one). I suggest that this be reverted. Hans Adler 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor that removed the hat note, and I left a note on Hans's page stating that I had and why, also that should he change it, I would not revert it. Simply put, talking about her butt is not a BLP, yes, it's not appropriate to put it in the article, but talking about it (not in violation of NOTAFORUM) that it should not be put in and why (and the discsussions to the contrary) are part of what a talk page is for. Consensus should be sought and gained, not hatted and forgotten. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, the young lady sought visual attention & received it. IMHO, the stuff about her 'behind' is not required in this article. Her notability is based on her being the bride's sister & bride's maid. Plus the fact that she'll be the aunt of the future King or Queen regnant of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good grief, I'm aghast that any clueful Wikipedia editor would even consider this tabloid gossip relevant and noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "clueful Wikipedia editor" has just received a warning for his smutty remarks about the subject of the article on its talk page. I suggest he cannot be considered a credible editor here. He's cruising for a BLP talk page ban as far as I'm concerned.--Scott Mac 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't make myself clear, in my 17:38 post. The Facebook site-in-question should not be used. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the talk page and so I can't comment on the behavior issues. But article text should be supported by reliable sources especially if the text is contentious on a BLP. That means tabloid like sources and info are not appropriate.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen how the material was originally presented in the article, but I'd point out that this kind of stuff is actually quite notable in the UK - indeed, we have an article on Rear of the Year, an award Ms Middleton is apparently now a contender for. I don't think it a breach of BLP per se to include information about people's appearances, whether it's because they have notably prominent noses, boobs, foreheads, sixpacks or bums. Wikipedia is not censored and we should not be puritan about it. The key, as ever, is that the content is indeed notable - and well sourced. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The title of this thread was what drew my attention to it. (Go ahead, giggle.) I've skimread the article and am not sure why it even exists. This is a minor celeb of no obvious notability (as I understand the word) whose "notability" (in the strange Wikipedia sense of the word) seems to depend on write-ups in British gossip rags. I don't think that her posterior is encyclopedic, but I do concede that writers the British press (even the "quality" press, of which the Mail, Mirror and Sun are not examples) do seem to harp on female celebs' posteriors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also attracted to this thread from the title. That a woman's body or part of it may be a reason or part of a reason for her notability is surely something we can recognize happens. Dolly Parton, Pamela Anderson, Joan Rivers, Michelle Obama. Protesting that the article is being made about Ms. Middleton's buttocks is an affront to an encyclopedia does not hold water. Many women in entertainment clearly make their fame about their bodies, and I guess one could spin it in a way that shows they are somewhat in control of that media attention. However, these figures (Parton, Anderson, Rivers, Obama) have received prolonged and widespread media coverage about surgical enhancements and/or features on their bodies. A Facebook fan site and a single appearance at the Royal Wedding doesn't cut it. The reason information about Middleton's rear end should be kept in check is because of the quality of sources. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have cleaned up the header a couple of days ago but I am attempting to be less controlling of the noticeboard. Sexy headers, opinionated headers that is why they are created to attract attention and drama and often to lead you to a position before you even read the content. - the article name is the correct header, simply informing users that the section is about that article and making archive searching easier. When all the headers begin to get tidy users get the message and follow suit themselves. The worst examples of attack headers happen on the talkpages of BLP articles - the partisan opponents when they are unable to attack the living person through adding attack content simply move to the talkpage where we allow a little more leeway in the aid of discussion and because talkpages do not show up in the google crawl results. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Related concerns about James William Middleton have been reported to ANI. See WP:ANI--Scott Mac 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Apparently someone has sold party pictures of the article subject to a tabloid, and at least one editor can't distinguish the resulting reflexes from proper news. Hans Adler 18:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim Duthie
Recently created article that was just declined A7 (I wasn't the proposer or decliner of the speedy). Anyway, a google news search of the name will probably tell you what's going on with this, but the concerns I have is that only in the last month or so has her name actually been allowed to be used in the media (I assume she must have turned 18) and, although the article is written as a fairly neutral stub, I think there are going to be massive BLP concerns in it. She's only really notable for one event (although the event is long-running) and I don't think it would survive AfD. Perhaps I'm being over-cautious, but I thought I would bring it here to be on the safe side. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure she's still 17,I think the name was out there in her tlwitter account anyway, which is where it was all happening.  Ialso think it should exist, but am struggling to find a policy reason to do so.  think redirect to a carefully written and watched article on the whole St Kilda schoolgirl scandal is probably the best outcome.  The scandals are notable, she is not.The-Pope (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just seems like an excuse to have another article on teen sex. John lilburne (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy, as I thought the inclusion of mainstream news sources indicated sufficient importance to get over the deliberately low A7 barrier. I do think there could be notability and/or BLP concerns, though I have not investigated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) ( reinstating my comment that seems to have been lost by a subsequent edit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) )
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Kim Duthie -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to say that I didn't mean to imply that you made the wrong call declining the A7 (it definitely made an assertion of significance enough to pass A7). If it came of that way I apologise, as it was not what I intended at all. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I didn't read your comment like that - I was just adding my thoughts for completeness -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the rather un-wikified creator of the article. I'm not surprised that there has been no Kim Duthie article to date, but with today's revelations (i.e. the Galbally report leaked and confirmed), I think we need one. Duthie has been in the media for months now, albeit only recently with her identity exposed, and people will be turning Wikipedia for the dispassionate facts about her. Don't we have a mission to provide those? But I know this article needs work - just trying to get it the point where it can survive AND be useful. Guidance willingly accepted! BTW, one of the best possible references for the Duthie narrative as a whole is the "60 Minutes" interview which in not validly referenceable (COPYRIGHT) on any www site I can find. How do I cite a TV news/current affairs report as a viable ref?? --Ian Page (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all! The events triggered by Duthie constitute quite possibly the most notable off-field AFL event of the past year. It is not over yet, and is certain to have long-lasting ramifications. --Ian Page (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian that it is a significant event in the AFL that has already cost the Jerry Maguire-equivalent of the AFL his job and has been going on fairly constantly for almost 5 months. I am actually amazed that it hasn't been made numerous times beforehand, and thankful that Ian has been so evenhanded, receptive and helpful in trying to comply with the site requirements. The-Pope (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Stuff and nonsense. Sports guy boffs young female is hardly news, its salacious crap that newspapers thrive on. In the UK we have the "News of the Screws" or "Wanker's Weekly" aka "News of the World" which specialized in that sort of stuff. Nowadays they all do. It ain't news, it ain't important, it ain't encyclopaedic its simply smut. Is "long-lasting ramifications" some form of code? John lilburne (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether intentional or not, "long-lasting ramifications" is a brilliant innuendo. I'm not sure the article has real encyclopedic value; I think the event is probably keep-able, but it looks like (at the moment) she herself falls under WP:BLP1E. In reply to Ian Page, I think TV shows can be referenced by using .  doom gaze   (talk)  12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-biography of a non-notable twelve-year-old "prince"
See Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark and WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark. There appears to be some block-voting by members of WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility going on. It seems unconscionable to me to have a Wikipedia entry (it's certainly not an article) on a twelve-year-old child whose only appearance in reliable sources is a single line in Debrett's. Hans Adler 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unconscionable is a bit strong, as is the bit about block-voting. As Wales said on the discussion page, you do get a bit melodramatic. Still, it's nice to see I'm not the only editor who occasionally uses warm rhetoric. In any event, I agree the article should be deleted and have voiced my opinion accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing this and Hans Adler’s comment at the AFD, it’s sad to see he has resorted to making unfounded statements accusing me of trying to organise some sort of ‘block vote’ as he presumably was worried he would not get his way this time. For the record I in fact voted to delete the subject of this AFD’s siblings articles and also listed them at WP:ROY without making any comment to influence.(Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 7) This prince is the future head of the Greek Royal Family, his birth and christening were reported in the press and he is in the public eye, attending the recent wedding the duke of Cambridge, so in my opinion is in a different position to his siblings. - dwc lr (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire AfD looks really unexciting and certainly not a BLP issue... if I rememeber to get round to it then I might !vote, but mostly on the Keep side if the claims about his relation to the Greek throne are true. Don't get wrapped up in much ado about nothing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the deletion of the BLP for any child who is notable solely for being royal, regardless of the royal house in question. Thanks for adding this topic to this noticeboard. I found out too late yesterday that a AfD on one of the Wessex children had failed for the second time, seemingly because only strong royalists saw the AfD in time. Rubywine (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The so-called prince is a child. Whether he will be 'head' of the so-called Greek Royal Family (which is no such thing, Greece being a republic) is entirely a matter of WP:SPECULATION. I admit it's less likely, but he might become the leader of an organisation that fights against all surviving monarchies by going through Wikipedia's excessive lists of lines of succession and killing whoever is on these lists, does not publicly renounce concepts of royalty and nobility, and is an easy target. More likely, he might just decide that he wants to live his own life as a normal person in the modern world, not humouring the anachronistic expectations of his mob. This is all pure speculation, as nothing is known about this child himself, and nothing can be known about his future at this point.
 * This pseudo-biography is unconscionable because he is old enough to read, and so are his classmates at school. Class conceit can have serious consequences (see the case of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg for an example of where unrealistic expectations can lead if someone is unable to meet them), and it is unconscionable to feed them in this way. It is not for Wikipedia to protect minors against their parents and wider family, but it is also not for Wikipedia to go out of its way making any such problems worse in a way that serious encyclopedias such as Britannica don't. Hans Adler 12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked Denmark still had a monarchy and a Royal Family so he is very much a ‘prince’. - dwc lr (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Corrected. This still doesn't make him notable, of course. Hans Adler 13:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Steven Slater
An editor added Steven Slater to List of HIV-positive people, including a reference which does identify Slater as HIV-positive. While I do not consider the NY Post to be a reliable source for BLPs, especially concerning potentially controversial information such as HIV status, it is possible that another source could be found, so the sourcing is not the issue here. I am concerned that Slater's HIV-status is not relevant to his notability (note that Steven Slater is a redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident) but out of the tens of millions of people who could potentially be on this list, there seem to be no criteria for inclusion (or exclusion). Is this in keeping with WP:BLP? Am I being overly cautious? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/jetblue_natic_SdcailLAMLPJFNTfsVj8BM - The New York post is a really awful publication. - If Slater is not notable for his own article here then his medical history/HIV status is also unworthy of adding to any list. He is not notable because of his HIV status/his HIV status is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rob because Slater does not have his own bio here--his "one event" status does not make him notable for inclusion on the list. However, if Slater was notable enough to have his own bio, I would debate the statement  "Slater's HIV status is not relevant to his notability". There is no Wikipedia standard which dictates that every fact we add to a bio needs to relate to notability. Almost every bio includes non-notable data on the subject such as date of birth, marital or educational status.  There are better arguments for not including HIV status in a bio, but relevance launches us into tricky territory. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed - anyways as there appear to be three users here with a lack of support for the desired addition I have removed it and left a note at the users talkpage that added it with a link to this discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia
Written more like a defamation page, nothing in the references is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.81 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a bit of a look and removed some of the attacking type stuff supported by dead links and not reliables and suchlike - subject has been in a little controversy as he is a web protector and has been allegedly hacked.. but we don't want allow opinionated sources to attack him so, quality externals and WP:NPOV style is the order of the day. If anyone is interested in the subject please have a little look as I have only done a primary assessment and removal of what stood out as contentious and poorly supported by unreliable externals. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Joshua L. Pomer
This is a biography of a living person which should not be included as it refers to a single event -- one surfing documentary produced in 2010. Of the nine references provided, eight point to the producer's own website and one points to an imdb article. This is absurdly self-promotional and not up to Wikipedia inclusion standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.160.242 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe he is not sufficiently notable for an article, then you should report it for deletion discussion at WP:AfD - we can't delete this unless it goes through the proper channels for discussion first. Before you go to AfD though, you should do some searching to see if there are any reliable sources out there - his IMDB entry names 3 productions that he is associated with, so there is a chance there will be some sources out there. (I'm sorry I don't have time to search to find out if this can be better sourced myself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Tripodi
slandering of this person is occuring on a regular basis from "OssiningVoter" Please see history, please notify me how to remedy the situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danboot89 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody had given this editor any warnings, so I have warned them against making unsourced controversial changes to a biographical article. I have the article watched now and will act further if it is repeated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

André Glucksmann
I came across this article tracking WP:EL spam posted by a user who has since disappeared, I thought I would check and their last contribution was to add an external link to a City Journal article (as usual) except this time there were 8 out of 12 external links to the website and, although I haven't had time to check them all (see here), it appears that they were all written by the subject of the BLP.

So, this person appears to be notable, I have just found a couple of Time articles from the 70s which talk about him (and the New Philosophers which also needs sorting out). Unfortunately, at the moment, it is completely unsourced, large blocks of text quoted without any citations - one of the only sourced quotes is from an article by the person in question and the other from a French newspaper.

Could you have a look and give me some feedback? I don't mind trying to clean it up, although I have read WP:BLP I am not sure about the "primary sources/self-published" sources bit.
 * Where do magazine articles written by the subject fall? (I am not guaranteeing that they are NPOV, in general CJ articles seem to be pretty biased right-wing rants, and also quoting the guys's opinions from his own articles seems a bit wierd to me). Basically, can they ever be suitable?
 * I live in France and am perfectly fluent in French, I could probably/obviously find more sources in French, what are the criteria for adding these?

Please add any relevant banners, templates or tags as you deem necessary. Thanks for your time. Captain Screebo (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS governs self published sources. Basically, they are fine for "I was born on June 10" or "I like ice cream" (or "hate communism") but not for "Joe Botz is a crook" or "I am the smartest man in the world". French language sources are fine if otherwise reliable. There is no requirement that English Wikipedia be referenced only to English language sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that seems pretty clear, anyone care to drop by and give some article-specific hints for improvement? I'm all ears.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Philip Hammond
Could somebody please adjudicate on this. See the edit summaries and the talk page. User:Newsnet has accused me of violating the BLP policy but I do not think so. -- Alarics (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me start by stating my POV: (redacted) Now with that out of the way let me say that I cannot for the life of me understand why comments made in a TV panel show are relevant to a encyclopaedic biography, the show lasts 60 minutes and I'll wager that within those 60 minutes he said far more than the brief quotes given, and that there were far more weighty issues involved. Why not mentioned everything he said? Why not mention every speech he has ever made in Parliament along with the media and opposing sides criticism of its content? Surely that would be more relevant to political biography than blathering on about car parking changes, or about share transfers that have no bearing on anything at all. John lilburne (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your POV is irrelevant, as is mine. Also it was not I who first added those two paragraphs to the article, but when somebody else removed them, I put them back, because it seemed to me they were properly sourced. Whether they are WP:UNDUE in the article, as you seem to be suggesting, is a different question from the one that I asked, which is whether or not they constitute a violation of BLP policy. I still await an answer to that question. -- Alarics (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its just partisan attack content - nothing notable at all in his notable life story. They are a violation of notability and trivia - not everything you can find in a sales led publication is worthy of adding to the life story of a notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that whilst gossip, bitching, and polemical whining is very easy to source, after all it is the daily stuff that fills in the bits between the adverts in newspapers, and websites they do not make for an in depth biography of a person. John lilburne (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @John, as Alarics points out your POV is irrelevant, remember Wikipedia is supposed to be about WP:NPOV. I have taken the unusual step of redacting your comment to remove your rant as it falls foul of WP:BLP, (see this revert on a BLP talk page). I also removed two groups of two words that were needlessly insulting (albeit low-level) towards the end of your comment without changing the point that you are trying to put across.


 * I hesitated but this is the BLP noticeboard and if we start posting defamatory comments about people or groups of people here, say priests, politicians or pole-dancers, then other users might just think it's okay to slander or bad-mouth these people or categories in article space (or on talk pages, user pages etc.) For example: Roman Catholic priests tend to have x tendencies; or, pole-dancers are known for their loose morals. I can see from your edit history that you are not a newbie and, apparently, contribute a lot to BLPs and this noticeboard. I assume you just needed to let off steam. Yours in good faith.  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryke Geerd Hamer
Hello. I only want to warn you that the article about Ryke Geerd Hamer speaks untruthfully with intent to mislead. You can try Hamer's site and reason his posture. Anyone with capacity of independent thinking will discern the validity of Hamer's systematic investigation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.110.224 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of accusations in the article, and I haven't had a chance yet to verify all the sources, but what in particular do you object to?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Burton
An editor disagrees with my removal of the subject's middle name, sourced to http://www.findmypast.co.uk which is a database of birth, marriage and death records (I couldn't find any alternative sources for it). The editor believes that there is no privacy issue because the information is freely available on that site (raised on my talk page). Do WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB apply to information obtained from sites like Findmypast? January ( talk ) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The RSN may be a better location to ask but as I remember from previous discussion its not reliable. Its also closer to investigative journalism than what we are here to do - report on what quality reliable publications report. - You have toi go to that place and search for someone - you may or may not return results for the correct person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * findmypast is just an index using data from the UK government General Register Office so it is reliable as a primary source. But as Off2riorob says proving it is the right person the data refers to needs some sort of secondary source. This is not a view on if it should be used just on the reliability. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of the privacy issues outlined in WP:DOB when I removed it, her full name has clearly not already been widely published. January ( talk ) 18:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - also - issues with privacy regarding personal detail that is not published elsewhere. I remove or tag person data sourced solely from such locations as a matter of course. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is categorical we never use public records as sources in BLP's. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Vilanch
I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look at the recent changes and reverts by User:DocOfSoc at the Bruce Vilanch article. I put up an RFC tag a couple of days ago and did get some comments indicating what I already was thinking: that the article needed some serious change from looking like an entertainment blog and an advertisement and take on more of a NPOV tone. The articles main editor (DocOfSoc) has been fighting practically every change made over the last couple of days by making a lot of reverts of the NPOV changes made, yelling in edit summaries, and being pretty rude and condescending on the article talk page. I'm fine with compromising and editing cooperatively, but DocOfSoc's changes seem to indicate he wants it his way. It would be good to get some others in there to take a look and make their recommendations. At this point I feel like I'm coming up against a brick wall trying to reason with the other editor. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the article and the Talk page discussion. I can see some bickering, but it might help if you were more specific about what reversions you object to, or what content you feel is inappropriate and should be removed, or is appropriate and should be added. I don't think that DocSouth has been particularly rude to you. She gets a little passionate when discussing issues. Of course, there's still your RFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I only brought up the rudeness because I think it shows the attitude of the other editor where his cooperation is concerned, not because it really bothers me personally. I figure that if someone is being rude to an anonymous someone in an internet setting -- someone they don't know and can't see -- then there's something going on with the one handing out the rudeness.  I don't really take that kind of thing seriously from my end unless it starts to get real personal and nasty.  I don't see that here.  Nonetheless, I am concerned about the POV pushing and the article reading like a magazine article or fan-blog.  Two other editors have commented on the article's talk page that they're seeing the same thing as I am with the article content.  That's why I'd like others to look the article over in its entirety and give their opinion.  It's possible that after editing the article as much as I have in the last couple of days and having to deal with what seems to be anger from the other editor I'm no longer objective. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vilanch is a colorful figure, and much of the content reflects that. I don't see any glaring indications that the article is a "fan-blog". Again, specifics would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lhb1239's first changes: . DocOfSoc's first changes: . Lhb1239's second changes: . DocOfSoc's second changes:.


 * DocOfSoc's second changes add content like, "Midler calls him 'the first man to put something in my mouth that actually made us both money.'", replace "ability to generate off-the-cuff one-liners" with "uncanny ability to generate off-the-cuff one-liners", and add interruptive phrases like "Vilanch's mother, Henne, an accomplished scene stealer, also appeared in the documentary." Lhb1239's first changes removed language like "On innumerable award shows, personal appearances and variety shows, Vilanch is the craftsman behind the scenes, if a clever line is memorable and achingly funny, odds are that it came from the hand and the capricious mind of Bruce Vilanch." and "Vilanch has a robust résumé in musical comedy." Plugs like "By drawing upon the talents, resources and generosity of the American theatre & dance communities, BC/EFA raises funds for AIDS-related causes and other critical illnesses across the United States." and "Funds raised will help underwrite PAWS/LA’s programs to assist in the care of the animals of people who are elderly and low-income or living with life-threatening illnesses" were also removed by Lhb1239. It is telling that when DocOfSoc produces references for Lhb1239's citation needed tags, they are to websites like insidesocial.com and netglimse.com. I cannot speak to the rudeness that Lhb1239 has felt from DocOfSoc's comments and edit summaries—Lhb1239 needs to provide diffs to clarify—, but content-wise, Lhb1239's "boring" trims bring the article closer to encyclopedic standards and DocOfSoc's "fat and fluffy" additions further away from them in my view.  Quigley (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All good examples, thank you Quigley. A couple of the things I'm seeing as problematic are what I would label editorializing adjectives that are essentially POV (Quigley provided examples of some above).  Another problematic thing I'm seeing that's being replaced by the other editor are direct quotes which don't really belong in an encyclopedia article.  There are way too many of those in this article in my opinion.  The replacement of direct quote and verbatim text that comes from the sources added are also an issue.  Mostly because the sources are questionable at best as accurate references.  Edit summaries telling me I "flunk syntax" are unneccessary as are edit summaries using all caps that indicate shouting.  Further, I was told that the changes I made initially caused the article to be boring and that in so doing, I had accomplished the impossible.  In my opinion, these are all indications of the other editor using personal attacks and taking his contributions to the article a little too seriously.
 * I didn't want to make this thing about the other editor and really wanted to see it be about the article as it is after the other editor's reversions and re-insertion of bad material. But, from reading Quigley's comments above and BBB's insistance that I needed to be more specific, I guess that it has to be about the other editor to some degree because it's obvious that the really bad parts of the article being reintroduced by that editor is a big part of the problem.  Maybe this needs to go to a different kind of notice board. I really don't want to do that, though.  I'd rather see the other editor comment here so we can get this straightened out cordially.  Any advice here from editors is welcome.  Lhb1239 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff you complain about is no longer in the article. I reworded the scene stealing stuff. I reworded the DRA stuff. I don't see anything wrong with the Midler quote.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Fussell biography
My name is Cole Behringer and i am the only POA for Paul Fussell Jr. There have been changes made to his biography by an unauthorized family member. The family member appears to have a user name of Ficamp. I would like to request that this user be denied edit rights. Can you help? My email is (redacted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colebehr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. As it stands, the article is clearly promotional, and does need some changes. But no-one needs to be "authorised" to edit an article. If the content of the edits are unfairly prejudicial, or violates our policy on living people let us know, and action can be taken. However, you don't get to control the content of the article. Indeed, if you an an authorised agent, it is best if you DON'T edit the article, because of the danger of conflict of interest between the interests of the subject and the interests of neutrality. However, please do feel free to assist by making any suggestions for improvement on the talk page. --Scott Mac 19:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) The short answer, at this point, is "No". Neither the article subject nor his family has an authority to control the content of the article. That said, some of the edits by Ficamp appear questionable. Rather than discussing Ficamp's actual identity (which causes problems under WP:OUTING, or making such edits as you recently did, which raise WP:COI questions given your voluntary disclosure of your relationship to the subject, I suggest you raise any specific concerns you may have over article content on its talk page. You might return here if your comments are not satisfactorily addressed (although it's often the case, in situations like these, that disinterested editors may find your suggestions incompatible with Wikipedia's practices and guidelines). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Leroy A. Mendonca
Editor has entered into an edit war and has repeatedly attempted to delete information from the article that is supported by multiple reliable sources. This may also fall under WP:COI, as editor claims to be related to subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the editor should be editing the article because of her conflict, but I'm having trouble with the assertion in the article and the sources that back it up. There are six citations supposedly in support of Mendoca being Filipino. Several are duplicates of each other, same stuff in different forms. Some of the sources don't even mention Mendoca. One says he was Portuguese and therefore doesn't even support the assertion. Regardless of anything else, this should be cleaned up. If no one else tends to it, I will, but I won't be able to get to it today.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that a mistake in this source, which is essentially the origin of all of the other sources nameing the subject as Filipino is being perpetuated. A note on his citation states he was born in Honolulu, so I don't see how Filipino comes into it. I also note that Mendonca is a Portugues family name. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one reference for supporting that the subject is Portuguese American, that is not questioned; however there are multiple reliable sources, many from the Department of Defense, and at least one non-DoD reference, stating that the subject is also Filipino American. All references, that have now been deleted from the article, all mention his ethnicity.
 * There was a recently changed since my last editing, entering a note at the end of the article stating "Editor’s note: The story originally had the recipient as Filipino and Portuguese but his family assures us that he was 100 percent Portuguese. We regret the error."
 * Furthermore, there is the linked additional reference categorizing the subject as Asian Pacific American.
 * That is one reference out of six. Are we not to believe the credibility of the United States Department of Defense?
 * Granted per WP:OPENPARA, the subject's ethnicity shouldn't be emphasized, however it can be debatad that the subject being one of a handful of Filipino and Portuguese American MoH recipients adds to the subjects general notability. Irregardless of ethnicity, the subject is already notable per WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CANVAS I am notifying related WikiProjects of this article of this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if he is of Filipino descent or not. Also @ Jezhotwells, Hawaii has a significant Filipino population from around 1909 when the Philippines was an American commonwealth, they were recruited for Sugarcane plantations. See Hawaii. Same with the Portuguese (at much lower numbers, who arrived around 1899). However, his surname, Mendonca, is Portuguese. Does anyone know what A. stands for though? -- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A stands for Anthony according to this source. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one reference out of six. Are we not to believe the credibility of the United States Department of Defense?
 * Granted per WP:OPENPARA, the subject's ethnicity shouldn't be emphasized, however it can be debatad that the subject being one of a handful of Filipino and Portuguese American MoH recipients adds to the subjects general notability. Irregardless of ethnicity, the subject is already notable per WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CANVAS I am notifying related WikiProjects of this article of this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if he is of Filipino descent or not. Also @ Jezhotwells, Hawaii has a significant Filipino population from around 1909 when the Philippines was an American commonwealth, they were recruited for Sugarcane plantations. See Hawaii. Same with the Portuguese (at much lower numbers, who arrived around 1899). However, his surname, Mendonca, is Portuguese. Does anyone know what A. stands for though? -- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A stands for Anthony according to this source. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No help then. Sigh. I wonder if we can ask User:Uncle Leroy july 4 what her mother's side grandmother's maiden name was... though that would be recognizing her as an authority without evidence. meh.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also take a look at the google book results. All of them are only snippet views though, probably not digitized and can't be accessed without getting a physical copy. But do note the titles of the books his name is mentioned in. Specifically, The Asian-American almanac:a reference work on Asians in the United States (1995), Reference Library of Asian America, Volume 2 (1995), A different battle: stories of Asian Pacific American veterans (1999), A report on Asian Pacific Islander veterans (1998). All of them were published long before the website Jezhotwells pointed out as the possible source.


 * Those books have no reason whatsoever to include a Portuguese-American in them. However, he also seems to be mentioned in American People of Portuguese Descent (and conversely in American People of Filipino Descent, both of them published 2010)


 * User:Uncle Leroy july 4 is already quite a distant relation, this being way back in 1951. And I hate to say this, but how sure are we that this is not racially motivated (he was, after all, killed by Asians in the Korean war), or how sure are we that she is who she says she is? Remember that mixed race Filipinos can very easily pass off as Latino. Those books in addition to the fact that the sources in the article are US government makes her assertion a bit more dubious, even if she is indeed a relation. Familial oral history can get more muddled than actual government records (I, for example, only knew that my grandmother was of half-Indian descent on her funeral). As much as I'd like to help her correct the info, there is no evidence otherwise and WP:V and WP:BLP both have strict policies on requiring sources. Simply claiming to be a relation is not good enough in light of anonymity on the net and the relative age of the information (from as far back as 1995). As WP:V says on the very first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".


 * As for my own opinion on the matter: I do not know, hence why I would rely more on published and reliable sources than a user.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for the search work, I am looking at them ... clearly there is a dispute, as such we can remove any reporting of his ethnicity - he is at the end of the day - American. - I moved the article to this position and removed all claims of ethnicity till this is worked - where is that user Gamiael when we need him... Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrm... can we get an oversight on this? They can contact people right? Maybe request US records or something. Removing both claims may still have achieved what User:Uncle Leroy july 4 wants, if this is indeed racially motivated (i.e. I'm sorry, but seems to be a question of 'is he white enough?', and Portuguese are of course, white, they're not even Latino). There is no question that he is of Portuguese descent given his surname (Mendonça would have been Mendoza in Filipino and Spanish), but given the place of his origin with (I mean, sheesh, see Ben Cayetano for a frame of reference on the reality of Hawaiians of Filipino ancestry. Granted, they are usually physically indistinguishable by white people from native Hawaiians, so I guess I understand somewhat), it is also just as likely that he had a Filipina mother. As RightCowLeftCoast says, being one of the handful of Asian-Americans granted MOH, arbitrarily removing his ancestry because of the protests of a single unknown user with no references to back her claims up against official US govt records and statements is bound to get hackles up.


 * Weight of evidence alone, I really recommend it be restored, though not in the lead. Down in the body of the article perhaps. He is listed in the U.S. Military Fatal Casualties of the Korean War for Home-State-of-Record: Hawaii, which uses archival records from the Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That is pretty much as authoritative as you can get. We can not just delete sourced information in an article just because someone we do not know and claims COI demands it.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its clearly in dispute and this citation says he was born in Honolulu http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/citations/mendonca.htm - Its actually of little note, its his ethnicity which is in dispute and not notable - he is a notable American citizen that won a notable medal those are our primary responsibilities to report - Leroy july 4 is a dodgy name, why I am not sure but other users here are also Filipino so you could say they have an interest, but thats not really an issue - me I do not care if what his genetic ancestry is, we know little about it and what we know is disputable. Where was his mother born, what was her genetic history... we have almost nothing of genetic ancestry to add. Here also native of Honolulu http://www.navysite.de/akr/akr303.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts that he is born in Hawaii, and buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific is really not is in question. Those are already well documented. However, his ethnicity is. There are references indicating that he had at least to ethnicities, and therefore considered a Hapa, which is OK; statistically slightly more than 1/5th of Filipino Americans are also Multiracial Americans, therefore the subject being a Hapa is not outside of the realm of possibility. This is further likely due to the well documented inter-ethnicity marriages that were occurring in Hawaii long before it became it acceptable on the mainland.
 * It is further understandable that references to his ethnicity, and the content supported by such references note be included in the lead per WP:OPENPARA. At the same time the fact (well documented), that the subject of this article is one of three Filipino Americans to be a recipient of the Medal of Honor is substantial, and within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans and WikiProject Tambayan Philippines this makes this subject notable, and thus it could be debated favorably that the subjects ethnicity contributes to his notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * True. I'm trying not to really, but you could say the same the other way around. I am not very nationalistic (no more than what you normally would feel anyway LOL). Just that if there was even one reference proving that he was 100% Portuguese, I wouldn't even protest. But there wasn't. I mean... Medals of Honor Bestowed on 10 Asian Pacific Americans < that's Dept. of Defense! Still DoD and still very specifically worded.


 * If they did make an error, User:Uncle Leroy july 4 should be complaining to them, not to us. And yeah, the real question: Where were they when those medals were given and why did they not protest then? Why wait until 2011? It is not our responsibility to correct the US archives.


 * And yep, the appending of july 4 to her name is particularly suspicious to me. Patriotism is oftentimes intertwined with racism (virtually in all countries, not only in the US). If she can provide even one reference proving that he was not Filipino in the slightest, then we would have something to argue about. Otherwise, why are we even entertaining this?-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, speaking of which, why is his picture not there? (count it) Unavailability or a hasty attempt to cover up an embarrassing mistake? *sighs in exasperation* I say, we find someone who can access govt records or something.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments that if it is accepted that he is Philippine and he is one of only three Philippines that won the medal then that is noteworthy. At least we seem to all acceppt that he was indeed born in Hawaii so that can go back - I think I got it in mind that was also in dispute but its not is it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: It's "Filipino" when referring to people, heh. "Philippine" is an adjective and never used alone except when describing the islands, then it's "Philippines". You say "Filipino"/"Filipinos" for men/undisclosed gender/group, and "Filipina"/"Filipinas" for women. And yeah, the other info unrelated to his ethnicity are uncontroversial enough. The rest... blargh. Dunno. Off to bed, gnyt.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was the government reference of burial at National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific been removed? The removal of this reference is completely unrelated to the subject's ethnicity. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and re-added it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, is this citable - one of three Filipino Americans to be a recipient of the Medal of Honor.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction five:
 * José B. Nísperos
 * Telesforo Trinidad
 * Jose Calugas
 * Rudolph B. Davila
 * Leroy A. Mendonca
 * All the above are referenced to by Filipino, the first two being United States nationals at the time of the awarding. Calugas was a National, this was revoked, and he was later a nationalized Citizen, and the other two were born as United States Citizens. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

After I signed off last night, my thought was that the best solution would be to simply remove his ethnicity from the article. Lo and behold (now that I'm back), that's what was done. I haven't read all the intervening history, but congratulations to all who achieved this solution.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is but a temporary solution. Given the weight of the references provided by myself and others verifying that the subject is, in fact, at least partially Filipino American, the expunging of said verified fact boggles my mind.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- The July 4 ref is likely more WP:Memorial as date of action / death, although I don't know if that bolsters the IP's OP's claim, it is less likely to be patriotism/ nationalism, in and of itself. Dru of Id (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- These, (section Newest LMSR Christened At Avondale Industries) and (this, although it gets the year of death wrong) may back the 'Portugese' heritage, and this disputes the 'Filipino', Genevieve's obit removes one primary verification, there is an address listing under the sister's name in Honolulu. Dru of Id (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Tripod website, appears to fall under WP:SPS, and is thus not a reliable source. If enough editors claim that X was not Y, without any reliable sources to refute the reliable source already provided, does that make their statements any more valid? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- Hawaii wasn't a state until after his death; as such, he may well have been tracked as an 'Asian Pacific Islander' (or the Army/military equivalent of the time) regardless of ethnic background. And the OP has posted here which might have been a better venue (not BLP). Dru of Id (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that posting in WP:RSN and did not see it signed, or any reliable sources used to back the assertion. At present statements that the individual in question is only of one ethnic heritage may fall under WP:OR. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to throw in another issue, however, in my research of Filipinos in Hawaii, there is a documented trend to disassociate with being a Filipino American in Hawaii Now that being said, that may not be the case here, but it may explain why there is such an effort to disassociate the subject in question with being Filipino. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)